Create Company-Level Email

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-idempotent behavior, and the description reinforces idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'). It adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the nested payload structure, the default for company_id, and the typical error statuses (401, 403, 404). This aids the agent in anticipating failures.

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 paragraph but front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides useful information: payload structure, defaults, dependencies, idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API location. It is slightly dense but not bloated; each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is created, prerequisites, required parameters, return value (HTTP 201 with new id), and failure modes. It doesn't elaborate on each body parameter, but the schema handles that. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra meaning by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'email' in the actual request payload, and that company_id defaults from procore_set_config. It also clarifies the dependency for communication_id, which the schema does not convey.

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 action: 'Creates an email on a given company-level communication.' It specifies both the verb (creates) and the resource (company-level email on an existing company communication), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_company_level_email_communication or project-level create_email.

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 guidance on prerequisites: communication_id must reference an existing parent and should be resolved with the matching list tool first. It also explains company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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