Create Company Inspection Template Item Reference

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false), the description enriches understanding by explaining the request payload nesting ('fields as top-level arguments — nested under template_reference'), the default behavior for company_id, non-idempotent creation, HTTP 201 return with new id, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is substantial behavioral context not derivable from annotations alone.

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 dense and information-packed without wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then logically flows into parameter handling, prerequisites, creation behavior, error scenarios, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, this description is highly complete: it covers the object created, parent record resolution, payload nesting, non-idempotence, return payload (new id, HTTP 201), common error cases, required parameters, and API endpoint. No significant gaps are evident.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the useful note that fields are passed as top-level arguments and that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, but this default contradicts the schema marking company_id as required. It does not elaborate on type, item_id, or payload beyond schema, so added meaning is marginal but not harmful.

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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Creates a Company Inspection Template Item Reference for a specified Checklist Template Item.' It distinguishes from sibling list/show/delete tools by stating the create action and including the endpoint. It also names the parent type (Checklist Template Item) making the scope 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?

Provides clear usage context: instructs to resolve inspection_template_id with the matching list tool first, and warns that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent). It also notes company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like the project-level counterpart or when not to use this tool, so it misses full when/when-not guidance.

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