Create Actual Production Quantity

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-idempotent behavior, response format (returns new id, HTTP 201), common error statuses (401, 403, 404), and payload nesting details. It also explains the default project_id behavior. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Six sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, payload handling, default behavior, idempotency, error handling, and API reference. The description is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 covers essential behaviors for a create operation: return value, error handling, default project_id, and payload nesting. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema fully covers those details. Missing explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, but that is more relevant to usage guidelines.

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 description adds critical semantics not present in the schema: fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'actual_production_quantity' in the payload, and project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions, which already have 100% 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create new Actual Production Quantity associated with the specified Project.' It identifies the resource, the action (create), and the scope (project). It also explicitly distinguishes from update-like behavior by noting 'calling it again creates another record' and returns a new id via HTTP 201.

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 clearly implies usage for creating new records, and the statement 'calling it again creates another record' signals that this is not for updating existing records. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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