Create Calendar Item

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a write operation. The description confirms it creates new records and returns the created object on HTTP 201, adding response behavior. No contradictions exist, and it provides useful context beyond 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action. It includes purpose, usage, required parameter, and API endpoint. Slightly wordy but efficient overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description mentions the response (created object on success). It covers the required parameter, the Procore API endpoint, and the legacy context. For a 9-parameter tool, it is reasonably 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description notes the required parameter 'project_id' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a new Calendar Item within Schedule (Legacy) in Procore, using specific verbs and resource names. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_calendar_items' and 'delete_calendar_item' by explicitly mentioning 'Create a new Calendar Item' and referencing 'Schedule (Legacy).'

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to create a new Schedule (Legacy) records in Procore.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context among siblings makes it clear. A slight gap is the absence of exclusions.

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