Create A Workflow Instance (Project)

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

The description discloses that the tool is a creation operation, returning HTTP 201 and the created object. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive, so the description adds context about the response but does not elaborate on side effects, prerequisites, or workflow activation behavior. Adequate but minimal added value beyond 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 concise (approximately 100 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It follows a logical flow: purpose, template/preset options, general usage hint, response info and required parameters, then API reference. Every sentence is necessary; no redundant or extraneous 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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers creation behavior and required parameters but does not describe the return object structure beyond 'returns the created object' or potential error conditions. It mentions HTTP 201 but not common errors like missing permissions or invalid parameters. Adequate given the simplicity of the operation but could be more complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior when neither template_id nor preset_id is specified ('default preset will be used') and clarifies precedence ('if both are specified, preset_id will be used'). This goes beyond the schema's descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter interaction.

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's purpose: 'Creates a new workflow instance for a given project.' It identifies the verb (create) and resource (workflow instance) and specifies the scope (project-level). The endpoint path and required parameters further reinforce the purpose. It implicitly distinguishes from company-level counterparts via the title and description context.

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 basic guidance such as 'Use this to create a new Workflows in Procore' and explains template_id/preset_id behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like bulk_create_workflow_instances_project_public or create_a_workflow_instance_company. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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