Create Generic Tool Status

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false) by explicitly stating 'calling it again creates another record,' explaining HTTP 201 with id return, describing error payloads and common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and noting the company_id default. This adds substantial behavioral context.

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 core purpose and contains dense, useful information. The required-parameters list somewhat duplicates the schema, and the documentation link adds length, but overall it is efficiently organized and each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (new id, HTTP 201), error semantics, default values, payload structure, and prerequisites. It also includes the API endpoint and permission context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches parameter understanding by explaining the payload nesting ('nested under generic_tool_status'), the company_id default from procore_set_config, and the requirement that generic_tool_id be an existing parent record. This adds meaning beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 'Create a new Generic Tool Status for the specified Generic Tool,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_statuses_for_a_generic_tool and delete_generic_tool_status, which use different verbs.

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 advises resolving generic_tool_id with the matching list tool first and mentions the procore_set_config default for company_id, providing actionable context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the create-focused wording and non-idempotency note make usage conditions clear enough.

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