Create Calendar Item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it returns the new id with HTTP 201, repeated calls create duplicates, and error payloads carry status codes (401, 403, 404). It also explains the payload nesting behavior. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides dense, purposeful details without fluff. Every sentence earns its place: payload mapping, project_id default, return behavior, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 create tool with no output schema, this description is highly complete. It covers the action, request payload structure, default behavior, success response (HTTP 201 with new id), error semantics, required parameters, and the specific API endpoint. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that record fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'calendar_item' in the actual payload, and that project_id defaults to the configured value. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Create a new Calendar Item,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_calendar_items, show_calendar_item, update_calendar_item, and delete_calendar_item by focusing on the creation action.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear ('Create a new Calendar Item') and warns about non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), which is an implicit when-not-to-use. It also notes that project_id can default from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools like update_calendar_item or list_calendar_items.

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