Create Change Event Comment

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explicit non-idempotence ('calling it again creates another record'), defaulting of required fields, HTTP 201 response with new id, and common failure status codes (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotation hints and gives the agent concrete expectations.

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 but every sentence earns its place: action, payload nesting, defaults, parent resolution, response behavior, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically. Slightly longer than necessary but not wasteful.

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, the description covers the return value (new id, HTTP 201), error handling, required parameters, and prerequisite resolution. It also references the Procore API endpoint. This gives the agent all essential context needed to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds valuable extra semantics: defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, and the requirement that change_event_id refer to an existing parent. This enhances comprehension beyond the bare parameter 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a comment on a change event.' It also clarifies the non-idempotent nature ('calling it again creates another record'), which further distinguishes it from update or delete operations. Though it doesn't explicitly name sibling list/delete tools, the action is unambiguous.

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 clear guidance: change_event_id must point to an existing parent and should be resolved with the matching list tool first. It also explains defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_change_event_comments or delete_change_event_comment, so it falls slightly short of 5.

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