Create Contract Payment

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

The description discloses that it creates a new object and returns HTTP 201, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds context about required parameters and the endpoint, but does not detail side effects like validation or error scenarios.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, including API reference and endpoint. Minor redundancy ('Create a new Contract Payment... Creates a new Commitments') but overall efficient.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the success response and required parameters. The nested 'contract_payment' object is acknowledged, but more detail could be provided.

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 description highlights required parameters and provides practical guidance for uploading attachments (multipart/form-data), adding value beyond the schema descriptions which are already present.

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 Contract Payment (Commitments) and specifies required parameters and success response. However, there is slight confusion between 'Contract Payment' and 'Commitments' terminology.

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 indicates the tool is for creating Commitments in Procore and gives API context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating or listing contract payments).

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