Create Project Currency Configuration

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

The description states that the tool 'Creates a new Currency Configurations and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201).' This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false), which already indicate a write operation. The description also provides the API endpoint, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or error scenarios. Consistent with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the primary action. It includes the required parameters and API context without extraneous information. However, the phrase 'Creates a new Currency Configurations' has a minor grammatical issue but does not impede clarity.

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 description mentions the HTTP 201 response and return of the created object, partially compensating for the lack of an output schema. It provides the full endpoint path. However, it does not address possible failures (e.g., duplicate configuration), prerequisite checks, or related tools like 'get_project_currency_configuration' to verify existence. Adequate for a simple create operation.

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 input schema already describes all six parameters clearly. The description redundantly lists the required parameters but does not add new meaning or constraints beyond the schema. It provides no additional parameter-specific details such as allowed values or format.

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: 'Create a project currency configuration by company ID and project ID.' It specifies that it creates a new Currency Configurations in Procore. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'create_company_currency_configuration', though the use of 'project' in the description and parameters makes the scope clear.

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 basic guidance by listing required parameters (company_id, project_id, currency_iso_code). However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a company-level configuration) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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