Create Material

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that fields are nested under 'material', that project_id can default to procore_set_config, that the call is non-idempotent (calling again creates another record), and that errors return HTTP status codes (401/403/404). This enriches the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations with operational detail.

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 information-dense but each sentence earns its place: action, payload handling, default, return behavior, error handling, required param, endpoint. No filler.

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 creation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, this description covers the essential operational context: payload format, defaults, non-idempotency, return value, error semantics, and API location. Very little is left to inference.

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?

While the schema describes each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds key behavioral semantics: top-level arguments are packed into the 'material' object, and project_id has a default from configuration. This goes beyond the schema's field-level documentation.

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 the specific action 'Create a new Material Entry', which clearly states the verb and resource. It further clarifies the request payload nesting and the endpoint, making the operation unambiguous relative to sibling tools like list_materials or update_material, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It implies usage by describing what the tool does ('Create a new Material Entry'), and notes the project_id default and non-idempotent behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like bulk_create_materials or update_material, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond project_id.

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