Create Contributing Condition

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 declare 'idempotentHint': false. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the structured metadata, which is a serious flaw. Even though the description provides rich behavioral details (payload nesting, defaults, error payloads), the contradiction with the annotation forces a score of 1.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds useful information: purpose, idempotency, parameter passing, company_id default, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. A small deduction because it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the operational context: what it does, how parameters are handled, defaulting behavior, failure modes with common HTTP statuses, and the specific API endpoint. This is comprehensive for a create operation with three parameters.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value by explaining that record fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'contributing_condition' in the payload, and that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted. It also explicitly lists required parameters, which goes 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 the tool's purpose: 'Creates a new contributing condition for the specified company.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like update_contributing_condition, show_contributing_condition, and list_contributing_conditions. The endpoint and API area are also provided.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to create a new contributing condition) and explains important behaviors like idempotency, company_id defaulting, and error handling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update/delete/list alternatives or state when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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