Create Observation Item

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it discloses permission requirements (403 for unauthorized assignees), expected error statuses (401/403/404), defaulting behavior from project configuration, and field mutual exclusivity. This greatly exceeds the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and packs in essential constraints, prerequisites, and error handling. While most sentences add value, phrases like 'Acts on the observation item and returns Procore's response' are somewhat vague and the 'Required parameters' line duplicates schema information, making it slightly less concise than it could be.

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?

This is a complex create tool with a nested object, conditional defaults, permission checks, and multiple linking options. The description covers required inputs, defaults, authorization, error codes, and endpoint context. It lacks an explicit output structure and some nested object details, but given the schema covers optional top-level parameters, the description is largely adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions cover all top-level parameters, but the `observation` object is described only as 'item object' with additionalProperties, leaving nested fields unexplained. The description compensates by specifying required nested fields (`name`, `type_id`), defaults, assignee_id exclusivity, and the four mutually exclusive link IDs, adding semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Creates an Observation Item on the specified Project', clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It also details required parameters and the API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_observation_item and list_observation_items.

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 implies use when creating a new observation item, and provides explicit preconditions such as checking assignees via GET /rest/v1.0/observations/assignees to avoid a 403. It also gives usage constraints (e.g., supply either assignee_id or assignee_ids, not both) and linking rules, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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