Create A Specification Section Division

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explicitly stating that calling it again creates another record, and it discloses error response patterns (401, 403, 404). It also explains defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, which is not in the annotations. No contradiction 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 is detailed but every sentence provides useful information: purpose, argument handling, defaulting behavior, response status, non-idempotency, error responses, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No filler or 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?

The description is fairly complete for a create operation with no output schema. It covers purpose, required parameters, response (returns the record with new id), error handling, and API endpoint. However, it does not describe the full return payload structure beyond the new id, so a small gap remains in explaining what fields are returned.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that parameters are passed as top-level arguments and automatically nested under 'specification_section_division' in the request payload. It also clarifies that company_id and project_id can be omitted and default to config values, enriching the parameter semantics.

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 division, with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the response includes the new id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling create tools like create_specification_section_division_for_a_project, so it lacks 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 for when to use the tool (to create a new division) and lists required parameters. It also notes that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer among the many spec-related tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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