Create Project Inspection Template Item Reference

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the API endpoint and HTTP 201 response, but omits important details like the need for multipart/form-data for attachments (only mentioned in schema). The behavioral traits are minimally disclosed beyond the 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 has 4 sentences but includes repetition: 'Creates a new Inspections' appears twice, and the second sentence is redundant. The required parameter list is front-loaded, but the overall structure could be tighter without the confusing 'create Inspections' references.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, enum), the description provides the endpoint and basic success response but lacks details about the returned object structure, common use cases, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like create_company_inspection_template_item_reference. No output schema exists, so more description would help.

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 parameters are well-documented there. The description merely lists required parameter names without adding extra meaning, format constraints, or examples. It does not compensate for any gaps since none exist.

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 states it creates a Project Inspection Template Item Reference, which is clear. However, it includes a confusing phrase 'Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore' that contradicts the tool's purpose and could mislead an agent. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like create_company_inspection_template_item_reference or other reference creation tools. The phrase 'Use this to create a new Inspections' is misleading and does not clarify appropriate usage contexts.

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