Create Cost Code

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the success response (HTTP 201) but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It is adequate but not enriched.

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, consisting of three sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds contextual info (API category, endpoint). Minor redundancy between 'Create a new Cost Code' and 'Creates a new Work Breakdown Structure records', 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?

The tool has 3 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema. The description mentions required parameters and success response but does not explain the cost_code object structure or possible failure scenarios. Given the complexity, more details on the return value or validation would improve completeness, but it covers the basics.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description only reiterates required parameters (project_id, cost_code) which is already in the schema's required array. No additional meaning or context is added beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 Cost Code, i.e., a Work Breakdown Structure record, and explicitly mentions the HTTP 201 response. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_cost_codes' or 'update_cost_code', which are not focused on creation.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Work Breakdown Structure records' implying its primary use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., for updating use 'update_cost_code'). No exclusion criteria or context for choosing this over similar create tools.

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