Create Drawing Set

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

The description adds non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), expected HTTP 201 response, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). These behaviors are not fully captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and give the agent operational expectations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and contains useful operational details (endpoint, error codes, idempotency). It is slightly verbose with the 'Procore API' and full endpoint, but each piece adds context. The structure is a single readable paragraph.

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 simple create operation and absence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: required parameters, default behavior, return value (new id, HTTP 201), and common failures. It could describe the created object in more detail, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

While the schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds the important default behavior for project_id when omitted (from procore_set_config). It also reiterates which parameters are required, reinforcing the schema. No additional semantics for 'date' are given, but the schema already covers it.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new Drawing Set in the specified Project.' It distinguishes from siblings like update_drawing_set and delete_drawing_set by specifying the create operation and includes the exact endpoint. The scope is clarified by the project context.

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?

It provides clear context: when creating a new drawing set, use this tool. It also notes that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, which is helpful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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