Create A Specification Section

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, non-idempotency (calling again creates another record), and error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses. These are not present in the annotations (idempotentHint=false is implied but explicitly stated). No contradictions with 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 contains redundancy: 'This endpoint creates a specification section' and 'Creates the specification section and returns it...' are repetitive. The error information and defaults are useful, but could be condensed. The endpoint and API section add value but also length. Overall it is somewhat verbose for the amount of unique information.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, defaults, required parameters, and common error responses. It even includes the exact endpoint. The main gap is the lack of detail on the specification_section object's fields, which is important for constructing the request. Still, it is quite complete for an API reference.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, which is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on the specification_section object structure (which has additionalProperties {}) and only restates its name. The specification_area_id conditional requirement is already in the schema. Description adds some value but leaves the core object opaque.

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 tool creates a specification section and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201). It also distinguishes itself by noting that calling it again creates another record, which clarifies it is a non-idempotent create operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_specification_section_for_a_project, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear context: company_id and project_id default to configuration set by procore_set_config when omitted, and it lists required parameters. It also explains common failure statuses (401, 403, 404), which helps anticipate when the tool will fail. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternatives, but the usage context is well described.

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