Create A New Time And Material Equipment Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) and includes the endpoint, which provides some context but no behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer.

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 four sentences and includes key details (verb, resource, required params, API info). It is fairly concise without significant fluff, though the 'Procore API: ...' line could be considered slightly redundant.

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 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core creation action and response status. However, it does not explain the optional parameters or provide guidance on constructing the request body, which limits completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description mentions only the required project_id and omits the optional parameters. Since baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, this score is appropriate.

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 Time And Material Equipment Log, which is a Field Productivity record. The verb 'create' and resource are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling bulk_create tool or update tool, though the single-create nature is implied by HTTP 201.

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 advises 'Use this to create a new Field Productivity records' and identifies the required parameter project_id. It does not discuss when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like the bulk_create version, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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