Create Project Membership

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing that calling it again creates another record (confirming non-idempotence), that project_id defaults to config when omitted, and that failures produce error payloads with common HTTP statuses. This adds useful context beyond the structured 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 long but information-dense, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with limitations, parameter handling, return behavior, errors, and API reference, making it well-organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (HTTP 201 with new id), error scenarios, and parameter defaults. It could mention the response body structure, but for a simple create operation, this is 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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and clarifies party_id is a reference user, adding value. However, there's an internal contradiction: project_id is listed as required in both schema and description, yet the description also says it defaults when omitted, which detracts from clarity.

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 begins with 'Create a Project Membership for a party on the given Project,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly stating current limitations (only reference users, not login users or vendors), making the tool's 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 clearly states when to use (adding reference users) and when not to use (cannot add login users or vendors). However, it does not name alternative tools to use instead, so it falls short of the top score.

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