Create A Company WBS Segment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 on success, which provides some behavioral context but does not significantly expand beyond what annotations convey.

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 efficiently structured with key details: purpose, required parameters, endpoint, and HTTP status. It is slightly redundant (first two sentences are similar) but still clear and front-loaded.

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?

For a creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, required parameters, endpoint, and success response. It does not explain optional parameters or potential errors, but the annotations and schema fill some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists the required parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema descriptions. It does not explain the purpose of optional boolean parameters or the enum values.

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 company-level WBS Segment, specifying it's for Work Breakdown Structure records in Procore. It distinguishes from siblings like create_a_wbs_code by emphasizing 'company level' and providing the specific endpoint.

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 Work Breakdown Structure records' and lists required parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like create_a_wbs_code. Usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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