Create A Response

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

The description enriches the annotations by explaining return behavior (HTTP 201, returns the new id), non-idempotency, and common failure modes (401/403/404). This goes beyond idempotentHint=false by explicitly warning about duplicate record creation.

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 dense but every sentence contributes purposeful information—purpose, invocation details, defaults, side effects, errors, required params, and API reference. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose; a 4 reflects the good structure with minor room for trimming.

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 a simple create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: return behavior, error payloads, defaults, and required parameters. It does not enumerate the full returned object, but it does identify the new id. This is adequate for a low-complexity tool, earning a 4.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics: fields are passed as top-level arguments and wrapped into 'response' automatically, and company_id falls back to procore_set_config. This lifts the score to 4.

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 a specific verb-resource statement ('Creates a Response for a specified Company') and further disambiguates by naming the API section (Project Management > Inspections) and the exact endpoint (POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/responses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_a_response_in_the_specified_item_response_set.

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?

It provides clear usage context: top-level arguments (rather than nested payload), company_id defaulting from procore_set_config, and the non-idempotent behavior (calling again creates another record). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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