Create BIM Mint Tokens

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

Description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), which is beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. No additional behavioral details like side effects or constraints.

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 (5 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage, return info, required params, API context. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return, and endpoint. No output schema, but return behavior is described. Lacks explanation of what a BIM mint token is, but domain knowledge may suffice.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for project_id. The description merely restates that project_id is required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 creates BIM mint tokens and BIM records in Procore, with a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, but the name itself is unique enough.

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?

Provides minimal guidance: 'Use this to create a new BIM records in Procore' and lists required parameter project_id. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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