Create Billing Period

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), the return format (HTTP 201 with new id), and common failure modes (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This adds substantial context that the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false) do not fully convey. No contradictions 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 information-dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the purpose, then covers parameter handling, default behavior, response, idempotency, errors, and API reference. The 'Required parameters' list is somewhat redundant with the schema but acceptable. It is a single, well-organized paragraph.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: response includes the new id, failures are explained with common HTTP statuses, endpoint is provided, and the API category is mentioned. Given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations, this description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. However, the description adds valuable context by explaining that fields should be passed as top-level arguments even though they are nested under 'billing_period' in the underlying API request, and that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted. This enhances usability beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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: 'Creates a new billing period in the specified Procore project.' It identifies the resource (billing period), scope (project), and verb (create), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_billing_period or delete_billing_period. The endpoint is also explicitly provided, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 this tool: whenever a new billing period needs to be created. It also notes that calling it again creates another record, indicating non-idempotency. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_billing_period for modifications), so it slightly misses the 'when-not' guidance. Still, the create action is unmistakable.

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