Add To Project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record') and common error statuses (401, 403, 404), adding value beyond the annotations which already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. However, the phrase 'Creates the project and returns it with its new id' is misleading because the endpoint adds a vendor to an existing project, not creates a project. This inaccuracy lowers the score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes essential operational details (prerequisites, behavior, errors, required params, API reference). It is slightly long but every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers key invocation aspects: required parameters, default behavior, error handling, and endpoint. It falls short of fully explaining the return value ('returns it with its new id' is ambiguous) and does not mention the optional view parameter, but overall it is adequate for an action tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted and emphasizing that both project_id and id are required. This enhances parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Add a specified vendor to a Project from the Company Directory.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like add_company_user_to_project and create_project_vendor. The endpoint and API reference reinforce the tool's unique purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it explains the prerequisite to resolve 'id' with a list tool, notes the project_id default from procore_set_config, and warns about non-idempotency. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.