Create Program

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false) indicate a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) and specifies the endpoint. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling. The description adds value but could be more comprehensive.

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 4 sentences and includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Create a new Program' and 'Use this to create a new Company Settings' essentially repeat). It also includes the full endpoint path, which may be unnecessary for an agent. Could be trimmed to 2 sentences without loss of essential information.

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 simple creation tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the required parameter, success response, and API reference. It does not mention possible errors or input validation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use appropriately.

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 all 5 parameters having descriptions. The description mentions that company_id is required, but does not add additional semantic or format constraints beyond the schema. Per guidelines, when schema description coverage is high, baseline is 3. No extra value is provided.

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 tool creates a new Program in a specified Company, with the result being the created object and HTTP 201. It specifies the resource (Program) and action (Create), and the context of Company Settings in Procore. The sibling tools include delete_program, show_program, list_programs, and update_program, so the purpose is distinct and 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 provides usage guidance by stating 'Use this to create a new Company Settings in Procore' and notes the required parameter company_id. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternatives, the context of 'create' versus other operations is clear given the sibling tools (update, delete, etc.).

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