Create Project Naming Standard Rule

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it explicitly states calling again creates another record (non-idempotent), returns HTTP 201 with a new id, and details common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). It also highlights the business rule about only one active rule, adding context not available from annotations alone. This is rich behavioral transparency.

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 long but each sentence contributes meaningful information: purpose, constraint, defaults, return behavior, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly dense but not rambling; a minor deduction for including endpoint details that may be redundant for some users.

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 (10 parameters, 4 required, no output schema), the description covers return value (new id), HTTP status codes, error payloads, defaulting behavior, and the uniqueness constraint. It does not explain what constitutes an 'active' rule or mention how to handle the existing-rule conflict, but it is otherwise comprehensive for a create tool. Sibling tools are available for update/delete/get, so the description does not need to cover those.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, which is not in the schema. It also lists the required parameters explicitly, but does not explain each parameter's semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The extra default behavior justifies one point above baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Creates a NAMING rule for the project.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update/delete/get naming rules and the company-level equivalent. It also adds relevant constraints (only one active rule per project) and return-value behavior.

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 implied usage context: it mentions the one-active-rule-per-project constraint, which cautions against creating duplicates, and explains that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_project_naming_standard_rule for modifications) or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The constraint and defaults give some direction, but exclusions are absent.

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