Create Company Segment Item

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), default company_id behavior, HTTP 201 response with new id, and detailed error semantics (401, 403, 404). This far exceeds the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 longer than average but every sentence provides distinct value: purpose, defaults, prerequisites, behavior, error codes, required params, and API reference. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Slightly verbose but justified given the complexity.

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 return value (new id, HTTP 201), non-idempotent creation, common error codes, required vs optional parameters, and the exact API endpoint. It is self-contained and enables an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external documentation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by highlighting required parameters (company_id, segment_id, code, name), explaining company_id's default from procore_set_config, and emphasizing segment_id must resolve to an existing parent. This context is not present in the schema.

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 'Creates a new company segment item' with a specific resource and scope (company-level). It distinguishes from project-level counterparts by specifying 'company segment item' and 'Procore company'. The verb+resource is precise and 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 prerequisite guidance: 'segment_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' Also explains company_id defaults to procore_set_config. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context implies when to use this over project segment item tools. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but gives sufficient situational context.

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