Create Company Inspection Template Item

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (create) and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 and the created object, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description complements annotations adequately but does not go beyond.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then success information, required params, and API reference. While concise, it contains slight redundancy ('Creates a new Inspections' appears twice) and a minor grammatical error. Structure is logical and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain optional parameters, return object fields, validation rules, or differentiate from similar tools like 'create_company_inspection_template_item_reference'. The confusing mention of 'Checklist Template' instead of 'Inspection Template' further reduces completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description only restates required parameters (company_id, inspection_template_id) already marked in the schema. It adds no extra meaning for optional parameters like name, type, or response_set_id, which could benefit from explanation of acceptable values or behavior.

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 specifies the verb 'Creates' and the resource 'Company Inspection Template Item', and references a 'specified Checklist Template'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_company_inspection_template_item_reference'. However, confusion arises from mixing 'Checklist Template' with the inspection context and the grammatical error 'a new Inspections', which slightly undermines clarity.

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 only provides a generic usage instruction ('Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore') and lists required parameters. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use a project-level tool instead) or when not to use it. Among hundreds of siblings, this is insufficient.

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