Create Budget Modification (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: the endpoint is deprecated, it creates a new record each time (non-idempotent), returns HTTP 201 with the new id, provides default behavior for project_id, and details common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains the request nesting transformation, which is not in annotations. These are valuable, non-redundant disclosures.

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 long but well-structured. Each sentence provides useful information: the conditional creation, deprecation notice, migration link, parameter passing convention, default behavior, response behavior, error handling, and API grouping. There is some redundancy in the deprecation information (stated twice, once at the beginning and once in the DEPRECATED block), but this is acceptable given the importance of steering agents away from the endpoint.

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 complexity (7 parameters, conditional availability, deprecation, error handling), the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, when to use it (and when not), how to pass parameters, defaults, response format, and common error codes. It does not provide the full return payload schema, but since there is no output schema, mentioning 'returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)' is sufficient. Slightly more detail on the from_budget_line_item_id constraint would improve it, but that information is already in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-related semantics: it lists required parameters explicitly, explains that fields should be passed as top-level arguments (not nested under 'budget_modification'), and clarifies project_id defaults to the configured value. These go beyond the schema definitions and help an agent construct the call correctly.

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 what the tool does: 'Creates a Budget Modification only if Budget Changes are not enabled.' This is a specific verb+resource with a clear condition that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_budget_modification, delete_budget_modification, and list_budget_modifications. It also explicitly marks the endpoint as deprecated and directs to alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'only if Budget Changes are not enabled.' It also gives direct when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives: 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' This is exactly the kind of conditional usage guidance the dimension looks for.

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