Create A New Classification

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), which is helpful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or side effects.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential context (Company Settings, endpoint, return status). Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the required parameter, purpose, and endpoint. However, it does not describe what the returned object looks like or how the optional parameters (name, abbreviation, is_active) relate to the Company Settings, leaving 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description only highlights 'project_id' as required and does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the other parameters.

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 new classification associated with a project and mentions 'Company Settings' for context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create_classification' tool, which may cause confusion.

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 context ('Use this to create a new Company Settings in Procore') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_classification' or other creation tools.

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