Create Procore Item Association

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 on success, which is standard, but doesn't disclose side effects, authorization needs, or the fact that it creates an association rather than a new issue. The description is confusing and doesn't add meaningful 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 longer than necessary and contains repetitive and contradictory statements (e.g., 'creates that association' vs 'create a new Coordination Issues'). The view details seem out of place for a create endpoint. Not concise or well-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?

Given the tool creates an association between a coordination issue and another Procore item, the description fails to clarify what the 'procore_item' parameter is or its required fields. It also does not describe the response format (no output schema). The view discussions add confusion rather than context. Incomplete for a tool with a nested object parameter.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description only repeats that coordination_issue_id and project_id are required, which is already in the schema. It does not explain the 'procore_item' object's expected structure or provide any additional semantics 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 contradicts the tool name: it claims to 'create a new Coordination Issues' but the tool name is 'create_procore_item_association' (creating an association, not an issue). It also includes irrelevant details about views (extended, normal, compact) that are likely for a different endpoint. The purpose is vague and misleading.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bulk_delete_procore_item_associations' or 'create_viewpoint_and_procore_item_association'. The only usage instruction ('Use this to create a new Coordination Issues in Procore') is incorrect. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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