Create Contract Compliance Document

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds substantial detail: it returns the new id with HTTP 201, calling again creates another record, and common failures (401, 403, 404) are described. Also notes the Procore Pay requirement and default parameter behavior, all beyond annotation data.

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 dense but organized: it opens with the core action and prerequisite, then defaults, return behavior, errors, required parameters, and endpoint. Though slightly long, each sentence adds value; the repeated 'Creates' phrase could be trimmed but does not hinder clarity.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, defaults, return id, error handling, and endpoint. It does not describe all optional fields or interactions, but the schema covers them, and the description gives enough context to invoke correctly. Missing explicit alternative tool comparison, but overall complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant context for company_id and project_id (defaulting behavior) and contract_id (must be an existing parent), plus which parameters are required, improving semantic 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a compliance document for a contract', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from generic compliance document tools by specifying the contract context and providing the exact endpoint path.

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 preconditions: Procore Pay must be enabled, contract_id must reference an existing parent record, and company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values. Explicitly tells the agent to resolve the contract with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly compare with alternative create tools, but the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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