Create A Budget Lock

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds only the return status (HTTP 201) and the endpoint, but fails to disclose whether the lock is idempotent (annotations say idempotentHint=false), what happens if a lock already exists, or any side effects. The description does not significantly extend beyond the 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 short at four sentences, but it contains redundancy: the first sentence 'Create a budget lock' is immediately followed by 'Use this to create a new Budget records in Procore,' which repeats the same information. The structure is front-loaded but could be more efficient by eliminating the first sentence.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides basic contextual information: endpoint, HTTP method, required parameter, and success response. However, it lacks explanation of what a budget lock is, the conditions under which it can be created (e.g., budget existence), or potential errors. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter (project_id) and its description. The description reiterates 'Required parameters: project_id' without adding any new meaning, such as format, constraints, or context. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 identifies the tool as creating a budget lock, with the verb 'create' and resource 'budget lock' explicitly stated. However, the phrase 'create a new Budget records' introduces an inconsistency by using plural 'records' when the tool likely creates a single lock, which could confuse an AI agent. The name and title are aligned, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'delete_budget_lock'.

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 minimal usage guidance: it states 'Use this to create a new Budget records in Procore,' but does not specify when to use this tool versus other budget-related tools (e.g., create_budget_line_item, create_budget_modification). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.

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