Create Harm Source

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only mutation. The description adds that the tool returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) but does not detail failure cases, permissions, or side effects. It provides minimal additional 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 reasonably concise at three sentences. The main action is front-loaded, though there is slight redundancy (repeating 'Creates a new Incidents'). Minor inefficiencies, but overall clear and efficient.

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 simple creation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers basic purpose and required parameters. However, it does not mention the optional active parameter or clarify the relationship between Harm Source and Incidents, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description does not need to add much. It repeats the required parameters (company_id, name) without adding meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, which already define each parameter's type and role.

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 clearly states the tool creates a Harm Source with a specified name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_harm_sources, update_harm_source, or delete_harm_source. It specifies the verb (creates) and the resource (Harm Source), and mentions the creation of an Incident 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?

The description indicates when to use the tool ('Use this to create a new Incidents in Procore') but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It mentions required parameters but lacks exclusion criteria.

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