Create Generic Tool Item

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description explicitly notes 'calling it again creates another record' and documents the successful return code (HTTP 201). It also discloses common failure statuses (401, 403, 404) and the permission implication, giving the agent a clear behavioral model without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence contributes new information: purpose, reference link, payload handling, default behavior, prerequisite, idempotency warning, return value, error statuses, required parameters, API category, and endpoint. It is longer than two sentences, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema. No fluff or 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 tool with 29 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it creates, the parent record requirement, the field nesting behavior, non-idempotency, response success code, and error handling. It also links to documentation and specifies the Procore API category. This is a complete operational guide for an agent.

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?

Even though the schema has 100% parameter descriptions, the description adds critical operational semantics: fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'generic_tool_item' in the payload (a transformation the SDK handles), project_id defaults from procore_set_config when omitted, and generic_tool_id must resolve an existing parent. This goes beyond the schema's static definitions.

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 specific verb+resource phrase: 'Create a new Generic Tool Item in the specified Project and Generic Tool.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_generic_tool_items and update_generic_tool_item by stating the CREATE action and the exact POST endpoint. The resource scope (Project and Generic Tool) is explicitly identified.

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 gives clear context on prerequisites: 'generic_tool_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also clarifies default behavior for project_id and warns about non-idempotency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or delete), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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