Create Company Form Template

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

Even though annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: company_id defaults from procore_set_config, calling again creates another record (confirming non-idempotency), HTTP 201 with the new id, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404) with their causes. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and does not contradict them.

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 single dense paragraph of about 70 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information: defaults, response behavior, error conditions, required parameters, and endpoint. No filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: creation behavior, response status and return value, failure modes, parameter defaults, and API endpoint. The only omitted detail (multipart/form-data for fillable_pdf) is already fully documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 meaningful value for company_id by noting it defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not present in the schema. The other parameters are only listed as required, duplicating schema information, but the added default context justifies one point above baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Company Form Template.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_company_form_template, delete_company_form_template, and show_company_form_template by framing it as a create operation and explicitly noting non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record').

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a new template) and explains the company_id default from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as pointing to update_company_form_template for modifications, so it falls short of a 5.

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