Create A Company WBS Segment

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description explicitly explains the non-idempotent behavior, the nesting of payload fields, the default company_id from config, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds significant context not present in structured fields.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, payload nesting, config default, response/status, error handling, required parameters, API reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff.

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, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter handling, response with id, error statuses, non-idempotency, and API endpoint. With no output schema, the mention of returning the new id is sufficient. The description is complete for invoking this create operation correctly.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial instructions: pass fields as top-level arguments (they are nested under 'segment' in the payload), company_id defaults to procore_set_config, and required parameters are highlighted. This tells the agent how to construct arguments correctly, going beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new company level WBS Segment' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list/update/show by explicitly defining the create operation at the company level, and notes it returns a new id with HTTP 201.

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?

Provides clear context for use: creating company-level WBS segments, with company_id defaulting to procore_set_config. It warns that calling it again creates another record, implying non-idempotency. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., update_company_wbs_segment) or state when not to use it.

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