Create A New Group

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

It discloses defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, confirms non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), and specifies common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). These behaviors go beyond the annotations that only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive.

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 well-structured, starting with the action, then defaults, behavior, errors, required fields, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds useful information, though it is longer than strictly necessary.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with no output schema, it explains the return value (new id), error behavior, and required parameters, and gives API context. It does not detail the settings object or full return payload, but given the schema coverage and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already cover all 8 parameters; the description adds that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also restates required parameters, but the default semantics provide the main added value.

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 states 'Create a new group within a layer' with the endpoint POST /rest/v2.0/.../groups, clearly identifying the action and resource. It adds context about default company/project IDs and the returned object, distinguishing it from generic group tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: creating a group within a layer, with company/project defaults from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, such as for listing or updating groups.

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