Create Inspection Type

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). This is useful but does not disclose side effects or auth requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 fairly concise but includes redundant phrasing (e.g., 'new Inspections' repeated) and could be more streamlined. The endpoint info is useful but adds length.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the basics but does not mention constraints on the name parameter or how this differs from other inspection create tools.

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 both parameters. The description adds context by reiterating that company_id is required and by providing the endpoint path showing parameter usage.

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 an Inspection Type for a Company, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource and context, e.g., 'Inspection Type' not just 'Inspection'.

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 basic guidance ('Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore') and notes the required parameter, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and does not differentiate from similar siblings like create_checklist_inspection.

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