Create Project Currency Configuration

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the 400 on duplicate configuration, defaulting of company_id/project_id to procore_set_config values, return of Procore's raw response, and common HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404). This adds substantial context that annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) do not 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 typical but every sentence carries operational value: prerequisites, duplicate handling, defaults, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, though the endpoint/API section could be seen as slightly redundant with the tool name.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers most non-schema aspects: preconditions, failure modes, defaults, and error payloads. It does not detail the response structure beyond 'returns Procore's response,' but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the rich parameter documentation and clear operational guidance.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly listing required parameters and noting that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, a behavior not present in the schema. It also reiterates that currency_iso_code may differ from company base currency, reinforcing schema semantics.

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 'Creates a project currency configuration,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this create operation from sibling get/update/delete tools. It also clarifies scope (project-level vs company-level) and mentions the parent company multicurrency requirement, reinforcing purpose.

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?

Provides clear context: prerequisites (parent company multicurrency), duplicate behavior (400 if already exists), and defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'use update_project_currency_configuration to modify,' but the contextual guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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