Create Classification

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), the HTTP 201 return, and common failure modes (401, 403, 404). It also clarifies the request payload nesting, adding significant behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 well-structured: purpose, payload nesting, defaults, return behavior, errors, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence adds useful information, though the length is at the upper edge of conciseness.

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 is comprehensive. It covers the resource being created, parameter handling, idempotency, error semantics, authentication prerequisites, and the exact endpoint. No critical contextual gaps remain.

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 valuable semantics by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments and nested under 'work_classification' automatically, and that company_id can be omitted to use a configured default. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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's action: 'Create a new Classification associated with the specified company.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-duplicate sibling 'create_a_new_classification,' but the company-level scope is implied.

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 context on when to use the tool (creating a classification for a company) and includes useful usage details such as the company_id defaulting to the procore_set_config value. It does not mention alternatives for list/update/delete operations, but the intent is clear enough for selection.

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