Create Near Miss

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) and lists required parameters. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, authorization needs, or side effects beyond creation.

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 and includes the endpoint, which is useful but not strictly necessary. Some repetition ('Creates a new Incidents') exists, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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 creates a near miss as a sub-record of an incident, the description should clarify that incident_id must refer to an existing incident. It fails to explain the relationship or provide enough context for an agent to understand resource hierarchy. The mention of 'Incidents' is confusing and incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates the required parameters (project_id, incident_id) which are already in the schema's required array. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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 it creates a 'Near Miss record' and mentions the HTTP 201 created status. However, it confusingly says 'create a new Incidents in Procore' which may cause ambiguity with the sibling tool create_incident. Overall, the verb+resource is specific, but the differentiation from generic incident creation is slightly muddled.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_incident, create_injury, or update_near_miss. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide any contextual hints for selection.

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