Create Company Exchange Rates

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

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond the annotations: returns 400 for duplicate (base, quote) pairs, company_id defaults to config when omitted, returns Procore's response, and failure payloads carry specific HTTP statuses (401 expired token, 403 no permission, 404 unresolved id). Since annotations only indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, this added error and defaulting behavior is valuable.

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 longer than minimal examples, but every sentence carries relevant information: purpose, constraints, duplicate handling, defaults, error statuses, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. A minor redundancy is the explicit 'Required parameters' list, which duplicates the schema.

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 covers purpose, parameter semantics, duplicate behavior, error statuses, and API endpoint. It states it returns Procore's response but does not detail the success response structure. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, a brief description of the created exchange rates would make it fully complete, but current coverage is strong.

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 parameter descriptions already explain each field. The description adds the important nuance that company_id can be omitted and defaults to procore_set_config, and reinforces the uniqueness requirement for quote_currency_iso_code pairs. While largely redundant with the schema, the defaulting behavior is not in the schema and is essential 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 opens with 'Creates one or more exchange rates for the company,' which provides a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_company_exchange_rates, update_company_exchange_rates, and the project-level exchange rate tools by emphasizing 'for the company.'

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 clear context for when to use this tool: creating company-level exchange rates, requiring the base_currency_iso_code to match the existing company base currency, and noting that company_id defaults to procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, such as updating existing rates or working with project-level rates.

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