Create Company Vendor

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that creation returns a 201 status and the created object, and specifies ISO-3166 Alpha-2 constraints for country/state codes. No contradictions; adds moderate behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 adequately structured with a clear first purpose sentence, but includes some tangential details (endpoint, Procore API reference) that stretch conciseness. It could be trimmed without losing core information.

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?

The description covers main function, response status, and parameter constraints. However, it does not explain the structure of the nested 'vendor' object, which is important since no output schema exists. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but has a notable gap.

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%, but the description adds value by explicitly noting that country_code and state_code must conform to ISO-3166 Alpha-2 and provides a documentation link. It also highlights required parameters. This supplements the schema descriptions meaningfully.

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 it creates a company vendor, specifying the verb 'create', resource 'Vendor', and association 'Company'. It includes the endpoint and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project_vendor' or 'create_company_user', though the company association is implicit.

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 lists required parameters and states the general use case ('Use this to create a new Directory records in Procore') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_project_vendor) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for decision-making.

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