Create Change Event

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

The description substantially exceeds the annotations. It explains the request payload nesting (fields passed top-level become wrapped in 'change_event'), response behavior (returns with new id, HTTP 201), non-idempotency (calling again creates another record), and error semantics (401/403/404 with meanings). This is rich behavioral context far beyond the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.

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 dense and systematically organized: purpose, payload handling, response semantics, error behavior, required params, and API context. Each sentence carries useful information, though the final 'Procore API... Endpoint' sentence is somewhat redundant with the initial resource mention but still provides actionable lookup context. It is appropriately sized for a 15-parameter creation tool.

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 (15 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it creates, how to pass fields, what the response contains, common failures, and required parameters. It doesn't define what a change event is, but that domain knowledge is likely available elsewhere. The error handling details and non-idempotency warning make it well-rounded for an autonomous agent.

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 schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing required parameters (project_id, scope, status) and clarifying that all record fields can be passed as top-level arguments and are automatically nested under 'change_event' in the payload. This directly helps the agent construct the call correctly, going beyond what schema field descriptions alone convey.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new change event in Procore.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_change_order_request or clone_change_event by naming the exact endpoint and resource. The inclusion of the Procore API path and endpoint further anchors what this tool does.

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 explains how to invoke the tool (top-level arguments, required parameters) and notes non-idempotency, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are mentioned (e.g., 'to list change events use list_change_events'). Usage is implied but not contrasted with other tools.

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