Create A Proposal In The Project

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false, openWorldHint true) are present. The description adds that it returns the created object on success with HTTP 201, and provides the endpoint. This adds some context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions required or duplicate handling.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage, required parameters, and API details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not describe the returned object structure. It also lacks information on authentication, rate limits, or error handling. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), the description is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the required parameters (company_id, bid_board_project_id, name, type) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain parameter relationships or provide format details.

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 the action (create) and the resource (a proposal/Bid Board record). It specifies 'Create a proposal in the project' and 'create a new Bid Board records in Procore'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the v1 sibling tool (create_a_proposal_in_the_project_company), though the endpoint version hint provides some distinction.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Bid Board records' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the v1 version or other creation tools. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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