Create PDF Export For Commitment Contracts

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and may have side effects. The description adds that the tool 'Generates the export and returns a download URL or async job handle,' which provides some behavioral context about synchronous vs. asynchronous execution. It does not detail potential side effects or authentication needs, but no contradictions with annotations are present.

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 concise but contains a misleading sentence ('Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore') that does not align with the tool's actual function. The inclusion of Procore API version and endpoint is helpful but could be streamlined.

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 description explains the output (download URL or async job handle) and mentions the supported zones, which is good given the lack of an output schema. However, it does not explain the conditions under which a sync vs. async response occurs, or provide guidance on handling the async job handle. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple tool with three required parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds the URL path template (e.g., /rest/v2.0/.../{commitment_contract_id}/pdf) and notes the parameters are required, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Creates a PDF export') and the resource ('Commitment Contract'), with the endpoint path specifying the exact operation. Among sibling tools, it is distinguished by the resource type (commitment contract vs. change orders or prime contracts).

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 mentions the constraint of supported Procore zones (US01 and US02) and lists required parameters. However, it contains a misleading statement ('Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore') that could confuse the agent about the tool's purpose. No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative PDF export tools for other contract types.

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