Create Project Distribution Group

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), response status (HTTP 201), error payload details (401, 403, 404), and how arguments are nested under 'distribution_group' in the request payload. This substantially enriches the sparse 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 moderately lengthy but every sentence adds value: purpose, argument wrapping, default behavior, idempotency warning, response, error handling, required params, and API reference. It is well-structured and not redundant, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, non-idempotence, defaults, and common failures. It does not fully explain the return object shape or clarify the ambiguous 'description' parameter, but it is generally complete for a create tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that top-level tool arguments map to nested 'distribution_group' fields, and that project_id can be omitted with a configured default. These go beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 new Distribution Group associated with the given Project.' It specifies the exact resource and verb, and the endpoint further disambiguates from sibling tools like update, delete, or list distribution groups.

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 implies creation use-case and adds helpful context like 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and 'calling it again creates another record.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as update_project_distribution_group for modifications, leaving when-to-use vs. alternatives implicit.

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