Create Billing Period

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with a create operation. The description adds the HTTP 201 response and lists required parameters, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. No contradiction 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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the purpose, usage, and endpoint information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains that a created object is returned on success. It also specifies the endpoint and required parameters. However, it does not describe the response structure or potential error conditions, which would be helpful for a complete context.

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%, with all parameters well documented in the schema. The description simply restates that these parameters are required, offering minimal added value. At high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (billing period), but introduces slight ambiguity by referring to 'Commitments' instead of consistently using 'billing period'. This is a minor inconsistency, but the core purpose is well communicated.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore', providing basic usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., when updating or listing), nor does it mention alternative tools such as update_billing_period or list_billing_periods.

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