Create A New Layer

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds important behavioral details: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), success status (HTTP 201), and failure modes (401/403/404). It also discloses the defaulting behavior and endpoint, enriching the agent's understanding beyond the 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 a single paragraph of about five sentences, each carrying useful information: purpose, defaults, success/failure behavior, required parameters, and endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly shorter without losing critical details.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a create operation. It covers success response (returns new id), common errors, and required inputs. It does not explain every optional parameter's effect, but the input schema covers those, so the description is complete enough.

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?

The schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to config-set values, which affects whether they must be supplied. It also re-lists required parameters, but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Create a new layer within a context,' providing a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies behavior with 'Creates the layer and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)' and distinguishes it from sibling update/delete/get tools by focusing solely on creation.

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 explains that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, which helps determine when parameters can be omitted. It lists required parameters and gives error scenarios, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations (e.g., update_layer or delete_layer).

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