Create Configurable Field Sets

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with creation. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. The openWorldHint=true annotation may conflict with the schema's additionalProperties: false, but this is not addressed.

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 relatively concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it repeats the title and includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Custom - Configurable Tools' mentioned twice). Still efficient overall.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description offers minimal high-level context. It does not explain what a configurable field set is, the role of optional parameters like include_lov_entries or category, or the expected response structure beyond HTTP 201. The schema covers details but the description lacks completeness for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description merely repeats required parameters without adding new meaning or clarifying complex fields like 'fields' or 'category'. It does not improve understanding beyond 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 that the tool creates configurable field sets (Custom - Configurable Tools in Procore). The verb+resource is specific, and it mentions the endpoint and HTTP method. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_configurable_field_set or list_configurable_field_sets, though the naming helps.

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 says 'Use this to create' and lists required parameters, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the large list of sibling tools, more explicit usage context would be beneficial.

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