Create A Budget Change

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, calling again creates another record, and failures return error payloads with specific HTTP statuses (401/403/404). This goes well beyond the structured annotation information.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes useful behavioral and error details, but the 'Required parameters: project_id, status' sentence is redundant with the schema's required list, and the API/endpoint info could be considered supplementary. Still, it is efficient and well-organized.

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?

The description covers the creation behavior, non-idempotency, return status, error handling, and endpoint. With no output schema, it mentions the return includes the new id but does not describe the full response object. It also does not elaborate on nested structures like adjustment_line_items, though the schema descriptions help. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a create 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explaining that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, which is not present in the schema. It also reinforces that project_id and status are required, though the schema already states this.

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 'Create a new budget change with adjustments,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further specifies the HTTP 201 response and the endpoint, clearly distinguishing this from sibling budget-change tools (get/update/delete). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 context that this is a non-idempotent create operation (calling it again creates another record), and it states required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_information_of_a_budget_change or delete_a_budget_change, nor does it name any alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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