Create BIM Model

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it details the HTTP 201 success response with the new id, and enumerates common failure modes (401 token expired, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolvable id). The annotation idempotentHint=false is reinforced by 'calling it again creates another record'. No contradictions with annotations; it enriches what annotations already indicate.

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 well-structured and efficient: it begins with the core purpose, then covers return value, non-idempotency, error payloads, required parameters, and API context (Procore API, endpoint). Each sentence adds useful information without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one nested object), the description is thorough: it explains the creation behavior, success response, error conditions, required parameters, domain area (Preconstruction > BIM), and exact endpoint. No output schema is present, but the description states the key return value (new id). This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the required parameter names (project_id, bim_model) which is already in the schema's required array. It does not add extra meaning about the view parameter or the structure of bim_model beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it stays at baseline.

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 a BIM Model in a Project' and specifies the outcome: creates the model and returns its new id with HTTP 201. It also distinguishes this from other BIM operations (e.g., create_bim_plan, create_bim_model_revision) by the resource and verb, and explicitly notes non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record').

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: creating a new BIM model in a project. It also notes required parameters (project_id, bim_model) and the non-idempotent behavior, which signals the agent not to use it for updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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