Create Project Exchange Rates

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: prerequisites (multicurrency, 400 error), sync behavior ignoring exchange_rate, defaults from procore_set_config, and typical error statuses (401/403/404). This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 somewhat long but every sentence provides operational detail: prerequisites, sync behavior, defaults, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, making it efficient for an agent despite its length.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, defaulting behavior, sync edge cases, error responses, and the exact endpoint. It does not describe the return payload in detail, but 'returns Procore's response' is adequate for a create operation. The tool is complex enough that this level of detail is near-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: exchange_rates items must have unique quote_currency_iso_code and currency pairs must not already exist, and base_currency_iso_code must match the project's existing currency. It also clarifies defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, though this slightly conflicts with their required status in the schema.

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 one or more exchange rates for the project', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'project' exchange rates and including the project-level endpoint, clearly separating it from company-level or update/get operations.

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 (requires multicurrency enabled, base currency must match), but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. It implies creation versus update/get but does not state exclusions or reference sibling tools.

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