Create Company Currency Configuration

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

Given the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds value by stating it creates a resource and returns the created object with HTTP 201. It also specifies the endpoint. There is no contradiction with annotations. It could mention potential side effects or permissions, but it is sufficient.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It includes additional details like the API version and endpoint but avoids redundancy. Minor redundancy exists with 'Create a company currency configuration' and 'Creates a new Currency Configurations', but overall it's well-structured.

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?

The description explains the purpose and required parameter, but without an output schema, it would benefit from detailing the response structure or fields. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves some context unaddressed. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond noting that company_id is required, which is already in the schema. No further parameter clarification is provided.

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 action (create), the resource (company currency configuration), and identifies the required parameter (company_id). It mentions the HTTP 201 success response, making the purpose unambiguous. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_company_currency_configuration, the action verb itself provides distinction.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Use this to create a new Currency Configurations in Procore') and lists the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives such as update or delete, which are available as siblings.

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