Create A Checklist (Inspection) Schedule

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that it creates from a template, returns the created object with HTTP 201, and requires project_id. However, it does not mention that the tool is not idempotent (as indicated by annotations), potential side effects (e.g., duplicate schedules if called repeatedly), or auth requirements. The endpoint info is useful but not essential.

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 at three sentences covering core action, use, return, and API details. The repetition of 'Creates a new Inspections' is minor redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most important information. Could be slightly tighter but overall efficient.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context about the scheduling concept (e.g., that it generates recurring inspections). It does not explain how the schedule works or what the response object contains beyond being the created schedule. For a tool with this complexity, more complete guidance is needed for correct invocation.

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?

Given the input schema has 100% coverage (all 14 parameters are described), the description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning: only highlighting project_id as required. No additional semantic context is provided for other parameters like frequency, dates, or assignees. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 Checklist Schedule from a Checklist (Inspection) Template on a Project. It mentions the Procore API endpoint and HTTP 201 response. However, it slightly confuses by saying 'creates a new Inspections' when it actually creates a schedule that will generate inspections. This distinction matters given sibling tools like create_checklist_inspection directly create inspections. Still, it sufficiently identifies the primary action and resource.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with similar tools like create_checklist_inspection or calculate_number_of_inspections_to_create_based_on_schedule. The phrase 'Use this to create a new Inspections' is misleading and not a usage guideline.

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