Create Action

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

Description states the tool creates a new action and returns the created object, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). Beyond that, no extra behavioral details are provided (e.g., no mention of side effects, permissions, or rate limits). Annotations already cover the mutation aspect, so the description adds little value.

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?

Description is four sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes necessary context (required params, API details) without excessive fluff. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the title but acceptable. Could be more streamlined but generally efficient.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description could offer more guidance on optional fields, typical usage, or response structure. It does mention the HTTP 201 return but lacks detail. Schema coverage is high, which compensates, but the description itself is not fully comprehensive for a creation tool.

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?

Description merely repeats the three required parameter names from the schema, which already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters. No additional semantic value is provided, such as clarifying relationships or formatting expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool creates a new action on an incident. It specifies the resource as 'Incidents in Procore' and provides the endpoint. Minor grammar issues like 'new Incidents' (plural) distract slightly but do not obscure intent. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_incident_action_type and create_incident.

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?

Description lists required parameters (project_id, incident_id, action_type_id) and the HTTP 201 response, giving basic usage context. However, no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools (e.g., update_action). The description implies creation of a new action, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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