Create Company Folder

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting the HTTP 201 return with new id, the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), and common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). This aligns with the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: purpose, payload wrapper, default behavior, non-idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the main return behavior ('returns it with its new id') and error scenarios. It also mentions the endpoint and required parameters. It could provide a bit more detail on the returned folder object, but it is sufficiently complete for a create operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that fields are passed as top-level arguments but wrapped under 'folder' in the payload, and by disclosing that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted—information not present 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 clearly states the tool creates a new Folder associated with a specific Company, providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_project_folder by explicitly targeting company-level folders, and the endpoint reference further clarifies the operation.

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 on when to use this tool (creating a company folder) and includes important usage details like the company_id default from procore_set_config and non-idempotency. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'for project folders, use create_project_folder').

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