Create Group And Move Markups

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description adds significant behavioral detail: it returns the created record with HTTP 201, explicitly says calling again creates another record, and documents common error statuses (401/403/404). This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure modes, which annotations alone don't provide.

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 a single dense paragraph that covers purpose, prerequisites, behavior, errors, required params, and API reference. Every sentence earns its place, but it could be structured as a bullet list or shortened without losing value. Still, it's efficient for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, prerequisites, return value (new id, HTTP 201), non-idempotency, error payloads, required parameters, and even the underlying API endpoint. This gives an agent everything needed to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

The schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, but several (action, pin_id, escalate_to_pin) have generic, unhelpful text like 'JSON request body field — the action for this Document Markup operation.' The description adds useful default/contingency info for company_id and project_id, and lists required params, but it doesn't clarify the ambiguous body fields. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for weak schema 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 a specific verb+resource+action: 'Creates a new group and moves specified markups to it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_a_new_group (which just creates a group) and copy_markups, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 practical usage context: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, and viewer_doc_id must be resolved with the matching list tool first. It also states that calling again creates another record, implying non-idempotency. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it's not a 5.

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