Create Company Checklist Template

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), the exact success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains the default company_id behavior. No contradiction with the 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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then covers defaults, idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence adds practical information, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (new id, HTTP 201) and error payloads. It covers the default company_id and required parameters. Minor gap: it does not explain the list_template object's internal structure beyond the schema's generic 'checklist Template object', and it could more explicitly contrast with project-level template creation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 meaning by stating that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, and it reiterates the required parameters. It does not elaborate on list_template structure, but that is already partially described in the schema.

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 states a specific action: 'Creates a Company Checklist Template for a specified Company.' It distinguishes the resource scope (company-level) and includes the endpoint, which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_project_checklist_template. The phrase 'returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)' further clarifies the outcome.

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 gives context about the default company_id from procore_set_config and required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_project_checklist_template). The company-level scope is implied by the name and endpoint, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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