Create Company Inspection Template Item

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

The description discloses several important behavioral traits: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), return behavior (HTTP 201 with new id), field nesting under inspection_template_item, default company_id behavior, and common error statuses (401/403/404). This adds substantial context beyond the annotations (which only provide hints) and aligns perfectly with 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 compact yet information-dense, front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically covering prerequisites, return behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence provides operational value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 params, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers creation, parent resolution, defaults, return values, HTTP status codes, and even points to the API endpoint. The optional fields are already described in the schema, so no further detail is needed. This is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 has 100% description coverage with basic field descriptions. The tool description adds valuable meaning by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested in the payload, that company_id defaults to the configured value, and that inspection_template_id must be an existing parent. These enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Creates a Company Inspection Template Item for a specified Checklist Template.' It uses a specific verb ('Creates') and names the exact resource and parent context. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by the creation intent and includes the API endpoint, making it unambiguous.

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: it specifies that inspection_template_id must reference an existing parent and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also notes company_id defaults from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., update/delete) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of fully differentiating usage scenarios.

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