Create Budget Line Item

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive or idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP 201 response on success and that the created object is returned. It also reveals the endpoint and API version, which helps the agent understand the network call. 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 with three sentences, starting with the core action. It includes API details (version, category, endpoint) that are useful but slightly verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 is a simple create operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, required parameters, return behavior, and HTTP status. However, it lacks information on error handling, auth requirements, or when not to use it. The annotations partially fill gaps, but the description could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters. The description just lists the required parameters without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 adds a new line item to a budget, creating Budget records in Procore. The verb 'add' and resource 'line item' are specific, and the context of creating is unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_budget_modification', the name and description make the purpose clear.

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 basic usage instruction ('Use this to create a new Budget records in Procore') and lists required parameters, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating or deleting budget line items. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisite conditions.

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