Create Generic Tool Status

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (writes) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the created object with HTTP 201. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like duplicate handling, rate limits, or permissions, which would add value beyond 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 somewhat repetitive (e.g., mentions 'Custom - Configurable Tools' twice) and could be more concise. It includes useful info like the endpoint and documentation link, but the internal inconsistency reduces efficiency.

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 only vaguely mentions 'returns the created object' without detailing its structure. It does not cover error handling, uniqueness constraints, or prerequisites (e.g., the generic tool must exist). This leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description lists the required parameters but adds no additional semantics (e.g., format, constraints, example values). Baseline 3 as 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 starts clearly stating 'Create a new Generic Tool Status for the specified Generic Tool.' However, it later says 'Use this to create a new Custom - Configurable Tools in Procore' and 'Creates a new Custom - Configurable Tools', which is inconsistent because the tool creates a status, not a tool itself. This confusion lowers purpose clarity.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., create_generic_tool, create_generic_tool_item). It lists required parameters but offers no context on when not to use it or prerequisites. The mention of the documentation link is helpful but insufficient.

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