Create Or Find BIM View Folder By Path

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the mutation capability. However, the description fails to disclose important behaviors beyond what annotations provide, such as what happens if the folder exists (does it return the existing one or error?), or the behavior when the path is invalid. It also does not mention any destructive side effects or idempotency (though annotations suggest non-idempotent). Overall, the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 relatively short (three sentences) but includes redundant phrasing ('Creates or returns' repeated) and some unnecessary details like the API endpoint (which is better left to schema or documentation). It could be more concise and focused. First sentence is somewhat clear but could be front-loaded better.

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 has two parameters including a nested object (bim_view_folder), but the description does not explain how the path array within that object works or the expected format. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the tool returns when it 'finds' an existing folder (success code, object structure). This leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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% (both parameters are described in the schema), but the description adds almost no additional meaning beyond listing the parameter names. It does not explain the structure of the 'bim_view_folder' object (e.g., expected keys for the path array) or provide examples. Thus, the description fails to enhance understanding beyond the schema baseline of 3, so a lower score is warranted.

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 states a specific verb-resource combination ('Creates or returns the last view folder for the array of path provided'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. The name includes 'by path' and the description mentions path array, distinguishing it from sibling BIM folder tools like 'create_bim_view_folder' or batch versions. However, there is a slight mismatch: the description also says 'Use this to create a new BIM records' which refers to records rather than view folders, causing minor confusion.

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 BIM records in Procore' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using 'create_bim_view_folder' for direct creation). There is no guidance on when to avoid this tool or mention of prerequisites. The mention of required parameters is basic and does not help the agent decide if this tool is appropriate for a given task.

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