Create Company-Level Email Communication

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description explains the consequence of non-idempotency, mentions HTTP 201 on success, and enumerates common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds useful behavioral context about token expiration, permissions, and invalid IDs.

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 focused paragraph. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds defaults, behavior, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence carries useful information, and it remains concise despite covering multiple aspects.

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?

With no output schema and two complex nested objects (communication, email) that are unconstrained, the description could be more helpful. It states the return includes a new id but does not describe the full response or give examples of valid communication/email structures. Given the tool's moderate complexity, it is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond restating required parameters and the company_id default. It does not explain the internal structure of the 'communication' and 'email' objects, which are free-form (additionalProperties).

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 function: 'Creates a new company-level email communication for the specified Procore company.' This includes a specific verb and resource, and the scope is defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_level_email' or 'create_email_communication', so it falls short of a 5.

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 useful context: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and 'calling it again creates another record' warns against unintended duplication. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, 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.