Create Project Type

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the success HTTP code 201 and confirms creation. No additional behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, side effects) are provided beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it repeats 'Company Settings' twice, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

For a create tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return (HTTP 201, created object) and API context. Lacking error details, but overall sufficient for a straightforward creation operation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., reaffirms URL path parameter vs body field).

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 action 'Create a new Project Type' and the resource 'associated with a specific Company'. It also specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, delete, or update.

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 advises using this tool to create a new Company Settings in Procore and lists required parameters. While it implies when to use, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like updating or listing, but the context is clear enough.

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