Create Commitment Contract

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions the HTTP 201 success response and the API endpoint. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., workflow triggers) or permissions required. With annotations present, the description adds some value but is not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently communicates the core action and required inputs. Minor redundancy (using both 'Commitments' and 'Commitment Contract') but overall concise and well-structured. Every sentence adds value.

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 32 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the API endpoint and HTTP status code, but does not explain the response structure or any usage constraints (e.g., default values, validation rules). It is adequate but not thorough for a highly parameterized creation tool.

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 the schema already documents all 32 parameters. The description adds little beyond stating that company_id, project_id, and type are required—which is already marked in the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints not covered by the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states it creates a new Commitment Contract for a given project. Mentions the specific Procore API endpoint (v2.0) and the expected HTTP 201 response. The required parameters (company_id, project_id, type) are listed, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While sibling tools like create_purchase_order_contract and create_work_order_contract exist, the tool covers both via the 'type' parameter, and the description directly addresses 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 says 'Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore,' which states when to use it but is somewhat redundant. There is no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., when to use create_purchase_order_contract vs. this tool). The listing of required parameters is helpful, but the description lacks explicit context for selection among sibling tools.

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