Create Project Stage

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). It does not disclose potential side effects or error conditions beyond what annotations hint at.

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 relatively short (4 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it includes redundant phrasing ('Creates a new Company Settings') which wastes tokens. Could be slightly tighter.

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 schema covers all parameters and annotations provide safety hints, the description adequately states the core function, required parameter, and return response. It does not explain enum options or constraints, but those are in the schema.

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 has 100% description coverage; every parameter is described. The description only reiterates that company_id is required, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a new Project Stage and specifies the required parameter (company_id). However, it confusingly refers to 'create a new Company Settings' which may mislead the agent about the resource type. Still, the core action is identifiable.

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 a usage directive ('Use this to create a new Company Settings in Procore') but does not compare with sibling tools like update_project_stage or delete_project_stage. It offers no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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