Create A New Budgeted Production Quantity

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world hints. The description adds that it returns the created object on success with HTTP 201, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on existing budgets), potential errors, or specific authorization needs. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It is fairly concise but contains slight redundancy: 'Create a new Budgeted Production Quantity' and 'Use this to create a new Budget records' overlap. The API endpoint and success response are efficiently included.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately states the return (created object with HTTP 201) and API endpoint. It provides the Procore API area and endpoint path. However, it lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., project existence), or rate limits, which could be useful for a 5-parameter creation tool with sparse annotations.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds general guidance that project_id is required, but this is already implied by the schema. It does not provide additional context or clarification beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it creates a new Budgeted Production Quantity associated with a project, with specific verb-resource. It mentions returning the created object on success. However, it also says 'create a new Budget records,' which is slightly ambiguous since the tool name refers to a specific quantity, not a general budget record. It distinguishes from siblings by its creation nature, but not explicitly.

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 Budget records in Procore' and notes a required parameter, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update, delete, or list. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites or context-dependent conditions.

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