Create Prime Change Order Batch

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

Despite annotations already indicating non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: project_id defaults from procore_set_config, HTTP 201 with new id on success, repeated calls create duplicates, and failure modes (401/403/404) are described. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 longer than a typical one-liner but every sentence carries meaningful information: action, payload handling, default, idempotency, errors, required params, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the extra details justify the length. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 create tool with 29 parameters, the description covers the essential operational context: how to pass fields, defaults, success response (201 with id), non-idempotent behavior, error handling with common HTTP statuses, required parameters, and the API endpoint. With no output schema, the description adequately addresses return behavior. It is complete for selection and invocation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying that fields should be passed as top-level arguments (they are nested under 'change_order_batch' in the payload for you) and that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted — both reduce ambiguity 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 'Create a new Prime Change Order Batch' — a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_prime_change_order_batch, delete_prime_change_order_batch, and create_prime_change_order, making the exact object and action unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and notes required parameters and that calling it again creates another record, implying it is the right choice for creating a new batch. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., when to use update or commit batch tools). Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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