Create A Proposal In The Project

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds that it returns the created object on HTTP 201. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions, so scoring is 3—minimum acceptable given 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 with 4 sentences, but it redundantly repeats 'Estimating records' twice. It includes endpoint and version info, which is useful, but the repetition makes it slightly less concise. Adequate but not optimal.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, required parameters, and endpoint. However, it does not explain optional parameters or the return object structure (no output schema), and it lacks error handling details. It is sufficient for a create tool but could be more 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description merely lists required parameters without adding extra semantics or clarifying how optional fields (notes, scope_of_work, etc.) affect the proposal. Therefore, the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: create a proposal (Estimating record) in Procore, and provides endpoint details. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_a_proposal_in_the_project_company_v2_0', which appears to be a separate version, so scoring is 4 rather than 5.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like the v2.0 sibling. It only says 'Use this to create a new Estimating records', which is a basic usage statement. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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