Create Contributing Behavior

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

The description claims 'The request is idempotent; repeated calls with the same name return the existing record' but the annotations set idempotentHint=false. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the structured metadata, which require a score of 1 per the rules. No other behavioral details can overcome this inconsistency.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence conveys essential information: purpose, idempotency, payload nesting, default behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. It is structured logically from core action to operational details, though slightly dense. It earns a 4 for being informative without excessive fluff, but not a 5 due to its length.

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 the annotation contradiction, the description covers all operational aspects: what it creates, idempotent behavior, how to pass parameters, company_id default, error responses with common status codes, required parameters, and API endpoint. With 3 parameters and no output schema, this level of detail is comprehensive and enables correct invocation.

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% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining how parameters map to the API payload (top-level arguments nested under 'contributing_behavior') and that company_id defaults to the configured value. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 'Creates a new contributing behavior for the specified company' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting idempotency and that it returns the existing record on repeated calls, which differentiates it from other create/update tools for contributing behaviors.

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 provides practical usage context: fields are passed as top-level arguments, company_id defaults to procore_set_config value, and common error codes (401, 403, 404) are listed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context makes it clear this is for creating a new behavior, and the mention of idempotency guides repeated call behavior. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance prevents a 5.

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