Create Project Region

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), the success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and detailed error scenarios (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. It also clarifies the payload nesting, providing valuable runtime context not available in structured fields.

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 longer than typical but every sentence contributes: purpose, parameter behavior, idempotency, response format, error handling, required fields, and API location. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically, but it could be trimmed slightly without losing critical information.

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 values (new id, HTTP 201) and error payloads. It also explains the open-world behavior (creating another record) and defaulting semantics. The tool's complexity is fully addressed with endpoint, feature area, and required parameters, leaving no major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that record fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'project_region' in the request payload. This is useful beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 a specific verb+resource statement: 'Create a new Project Region in the specified Company.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_regions, show_project_region, update_project_region, and delete_project_region. It also provides the endpoint and feature area, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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 gives clear context for use, including the parameter-passing convention and the default behavior of company_id when omitted. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the create-vs-read/update/delete distinction is implied by the verb and the presence of sibling tools.

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