Create Procore Item Association

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

The description discloses non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), HTTP 201 response, error payloads with common statuses (401, 403, 404), and view variants. This goes well beyond the annotations. The 'shown below' reference is slightly unclear due to the absent output schema, but the overall transparency is excellent.

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 dense paragraph covering purpose, views, prerequisites, behavior, errors, and endpoint. Every sentence carries value, but the lack of formatting and the slightly confusing 'shown below' reference prevent a 5. It is efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 no output schema, but the description covers response views, success status, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. This is highly complete for a create-and-return operation. The procore_item parameter remains only generically described in the schema, but the description compensates well overall.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enhances coordination_issue_id by requiring it to be an existing parent record and recommending resolution via a list tool. It also reiterates required parameters. This added context elevates the score to 4.

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: 'This API endpoint creates that association' between CoordinationIssue and other Procore items. It names the verb and resource explicitly, but it does not contrast with sibling tools like delete_procore_item_association, which would merit a 5.

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 provides clear usage context: coordination_issue_id must reference an existing record and should be resolved with the matching list tool first. It also warns that calling again creates another record, indicating non-idempotent usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance of a 5.

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