Create A Response

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

The description notes that the tool returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), which indicates a creation operation aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it misidentifies the resource as 'Inspections' instead of 'Response', creating confusion. No mention of side effects, authentication, or error conditions.

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 contains redundant and confusing phrases, such as 'Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore. Creates a new Inspections...' This wastes words and introduces inconsistency. The API endpoint and Procore API reference could be omitted for brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value beyond 'returns the created object'. It does not clarify what a 'Response' is in the Procore checklist context. The erroneous mention of 'Inspections' further reduces completeness for an agent needing to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats required parameter names (company_id, name, corresponding_status) but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain the allowed values for 'corresponding_status' or the purpose of 'name' in the context of a response.

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 states 'Creates a Response for a specified Company' but then confusingly says 'Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore. Creates a new Inspections...' This inconsistency between 'Response' and 'Inspections' undermines purpose clarity. The tool name and endpoint imply it creates a checklist response, but the description erroneously references Inspections.

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 lists required parameters and provides API endpoint details (Procore API, HTTP method, path), but it does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_a_response_in_the_specified_item_response_set'. No guidance on preconditions or context for use is given.

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