Create Contributing Condition

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds that it creates a resource and returns HTTP 201 on success, but does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or behavior beyond what annotations already imply. The addition of return status is minimal, and the description does not significantly enhance behavioral transparency.

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 at three sentences, but contains redundancy and a confusing statement about 'Incidents' that undermines clarity. The first sentence effectively states the purpose, but the second sentence repeats and introduces error. The structure could be improved by removing the erroneous repetition.

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 simple create tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, required parameters, HTTP method, and success response. However, it does not clarify the relationship to incidents (if any), default values for the 'active' parameter, or other constraints. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description reiterates that company_id and name are required, which matches the schema. This adds minimal value, as the schema already specifies required fields. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not add significant new meaning 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 it creates a Contributing Condition and specifies the required parameters. However, it somewhat confusingly says 'Creates a new Incidents' which is inconsistent with the tool name and suggests a possible copy-paste error. The purpose is mostly clear but slightly muddled.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_contributing_behavior. It only states 'Use this to create a new Incidents in Procore,' which is vague and does not differentiate it from sibling tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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