Create Company Classifications For Project

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), error handling (error payload with HTTP status codes such as 401, 403, 404), and the parameter default behavior. These details are not present in the structured annotations and are essential for an agent to predict side effects.

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 a compact set of five sentences, each providing distinct information: scope, default behavior, response, error handling, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundant elaboration, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 single-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: expected response, non-idempotency, failure modes, parameter default, and the exact API endpoint. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's contract and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the project_id parameter description is already clear. The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. This is valuable for correct invocation.

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: it creates company work classifications for a project, and specifies the return behavior (HTTP 201 with new id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the project scope and the 'initial_setup' endpoint, making it clear this is different from generic classification creation tools.

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 project_id is optional (defaults to procore_set_config value) and warns that calling again creates another record, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_a_new_classification' or 'create_classification', nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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