Create A New Company-Level Context

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent write, but description adds concrete behavior: returns HTTP 201 with new id, and calling again creates another record. It also details common error statuses (401, 403, 404) and the token/permission prerequisites. This adds value beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds useful info: default company_id, non-idempotency, error handling, required params, and API source. No filler.

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 create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, it covers return behavior (new id, HTTP 201), error semantics, and defaults. However, it doesn't describe the response body structure or optional parameter usage, and doesn't reference related read/update/delete operations. Still fairly complete given 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 descriptions cover all 7 parameters with types, enums, and locations, so baseline is 3. Description adds the company_id default behavior and reiterates required parameters, but doesn't explain the meaning of context_type or sub_context_type values beyond the enums. It provides marginal additional semantics.

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?

States it creates a new context for organizing layers within a company-level document, with a clear verb and resource. It also notes that calling it again creates another record, distinguishing it from idempotent or get-or-create operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like create_a_new_context.

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?

Description implies use when creating a new company-level context, and mentions company_id default from procore_set_config. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_or_create_company_level_context_with_hierarchy or update_company_level_context. No exclusions or alternative tool references.

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