Create Hazard

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the creation nature is clear. The description adds that the tool returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) and specifies the API endpoint, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not discuss permissions or side effects.

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 three sentences but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Creates a new Incidents' appears twice). It could be more concise without losing meaning. The API endpoint line is useful but could be integrated more succinctly.

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?

The tool creates a hazard without an output schema; the description mentions returning 'the created object' but not its structure. It provides the API route and required params, which is adequate for a simple creation operation. However, given many siblings, additional guidance on when this is preferable (e.g., vs. bulk create) would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'company_id' is a URL path parameter and 'name' and 'active' are JSON request body fields, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions. This helps the agent understand request structure.

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 that the tool creates a Hazard with a specified name and returns the created object. However, it confusingly mentions 'create a new Incidents' which is likely a typo and could mislead an agent into thinking it creates an Incident instead of a Hazard. Overall, the verb-resource pairing is clear.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Incidents in Procore' and lists required parameters, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, but the sibling tools like 'update_hazard' and 'delete_hazard' imply its unique purpose.

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