Create A Bid Form

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the non-idempotent nature ('calling it again creates another record'), the success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and common failure modes (401, 403, 404). It also explains the project_id default behavior. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations and aligns with them without contradiction.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, necessity, defaults, prerequisite resolution, idempotency behavior, error handling, required params, and API reference. It is logically ordered and free of filler, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states the return value (created bid form with new id and HTTP 201) and error payload scenarios. It also covers parameter defaults, required fields, and a prerequisite resolution step. Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), this is a thorough and complete description.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and bid_package_id must resolve to an existing parent record using a list tool. It also calls out the three required parameters. This adds value beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Bid Form for a Bid Package.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from listing, updating, or deleting operations. The mention that a bid form is needed to submit a bid adds context that reinforces its unique role, and the endpoint reference confirms the exact action.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to create a bid form as a prerequisite for submitting a bid. It provides a key usage prerequisite—'bid_package_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'—and notes the project_id default from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_create_bid_forms or index_bid_forms, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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