Create A Budget Change

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 and the created object on success, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The description adds some value but not extensive beyond annotations.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the main action and including useful endpoint info. It could be improved by removing the redundant phrase 'Creates a new Budget records' (grammar issue) and possibly condensing the API reference. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the complexity of 8 parameters (including arrays like adjustment_line_items) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core create operation, success response, and required fields. However, it does not provide context on how the adjustment line items or production quantities work, leaving some completeness gaps. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description only repeats that project_id and status are required, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter meaning or usage context is provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 tool creates a new budget change with adjustments and specifies the resource as 'Budget records'. It includes the HTTP status code on success and the endpoint, which gives clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling budget change tools like update or delete, which reduces clarity slightly.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Budget records in Procore', indicating when to use it. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives (e.g., for updating or deleting budget changes). The context of use is implied but not fully specified.

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