Create Project Checklist Template

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating return behavior ('returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)'), non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), and failure modes ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This offers actionable 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 a single, dense paragraph but every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter defaults, idempotency, return format, error handling, and API reference. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it creates, required parameters, response (new id, HTTP 201), non-idempotency, and common errors. It does not provide a detailed return schema, but the basic return information is sufficient 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%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the project_id default behavior ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted'), which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the list_template structure beyond what the schema already states.

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's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a Project Inspection Template for a specified Project.' The endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/list_templates' and the 'Project' scope distinguish it from company-level template tools.

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 context for when to use the tool, including that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that 'calling it again creates another record' (non-idempotency). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the project-level scope is implied through the title and description.

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