Create An Estimate Line Item In The Proposal

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that a successful creation returns HTTP 201 with the object, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. The openWorldHint=true is not explained.

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 reasonably concise with a few sentences covering purpose, use case, required parameters, and endpoint. It could be slightly more efficient by avoiding repetition of 'Estimating records' and front-loading the key action. Still well-structured.

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?

Given the 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose and API call. However, it lacks details on response structure (beyond success), error scenarios, and prerequisites like user permissions or proposal state, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter well. The description only lists required parameters and provides the endpoint structure, adding minimal value beyond the schema. No additional syntax, constraints, or examples are given.

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 action ('Create'), resource ('estimate line item'), and context ('in the proposal'). It provides the endpoint and required parameters, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool targeting the company level, though the name and parameters imply project scope.

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 states when to use ('Use this to create a new Estimating records in Procore') and lists required parameters, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not differentiate from the company-level tool or mention prerequisites like proposal editability.

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