Create Checklist (Inspection)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), success status (HTTP 201), and detailed error scenarios (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the structured 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, defaulting behavior, return value, non-idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no filler.

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 has 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers return value (new id, HTTP 201) and common error cases. The main gap is that it does not explain the structure of the 'list' request body, which is a free-form nested object. However, the schema description 'JSON request body field' plus openWorldHint suggest flexibility.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted and lists the required parameters. It does not elaborate on the structure of the nested 'list' object, but the schema marks it as a free-form JSON body, so this is acceptable.

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 an instance of Inspection in a given Project.' It also explicitly states the action creates a checklist and returns a new id (HTTP 201), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like show_checklist_inspection, update_checklist_inspection, and delete_checklist_inspection.

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 provides clear context: it is a creation operation, project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and calling again creates another record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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