Create Property Damage

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

The description states 'The operation is idempotent,' but the annotations set idempotentHint to false. This is a direct contradiction that could mislead an agent into assuming it is safe to retry the request without side effects. Although the description adds other useful behavioral details (payload nesting, project_id default, error status codes), the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rubric. Flagged as Annotation Contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence carries useful information: required fields, optional fields, payload nesting, default behavior, error handling, and endpoint. While it is not the shortest, it is appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, with no wasted words.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema) and sparse annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the required and optional parameters, the payload nesting detail, the project_id default, and common HTTP error statuses. It does not describe the success response body, but it does state that it returns Procore's response. The false idempotency claim is a notable flaw, but other aspects are sufficiently covered for an agent to invoke the tool.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic detail beyond the schema: it explains that record fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'property_damage' in the payload, and it clarifies that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted. These are not present in the schema, elevating the parameter understanding.

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 and resource: 'Creates a new property damage record associated with the specified incident.' This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like update_property_damage, show_property_damage, or destroy_property_damage. It also lists the key optional fields, giving a precise scope of what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is for creating a new property damage record, requires incident_id, and explains that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the creation purpose is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection.

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