Create Project Inspection Template Item Reference

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

Discloses behavior well beyond annotations: mentions HTTP 201 response with new id, explicitly states calling again creates another record (matching idempotentHint=false), and documents common failure modes (401, 403, 404). Also explains the payload nesting behavior ('nested under item_template_reference') which is valuable context the agent would otherwise lack.

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 serves a purpose: purpose, nesting behavior, defaults, prerequisite resolution, idempotency, error handling, required params, and API reference. It is longer than ideal but appropriate for the tool's complexity and avoids fluff.

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 is thorough: it states what is returned (new id, HTTP 201), how to handle prerequisites, defaults, error response format, and even the API endpoint. It covers all essential aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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% with parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the request payload, that project_id defaults from procore_set_config, and by listing required parameters, which enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource+object: 'Creates a Project Inspection Template Item Reference for a specified Checklist Template Item.' It clearly distinguishes this project-level tool from company-level siblings (e.g., create_company_inspection_template_item_reference) and other reference-related tools by specifying the project scope and target item.

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: tells the agent to resolve inspection_template_id with the matching list tool first, explains project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and warns that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the title and scope make the distinction clear.

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