Create Punch Item

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds concrete behavioral detail: success returns HTTP 201 with a new id, repeated calls create duplicate records, and failures carry specific HTTP statuses (401/403/404). It also documents the multipart/form-data content-type requirement for image uploads, which is not present in annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into a marked '#### Uploading images' section, behavior/error notes, required params, and API reference. It is longer than average but each sentence carries informational weight, and the markdown header aids scanning. Slightly verbose but not padded.

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 a nested opaque object (punch_item has additionalProperties:{}), the description covers response behavior, error codes, upload mechanics, and the API endpoint well. However, the punch_item object's internal fields are never enumerated in either the schema or description, leaving a significant gap for an agent needing to construct a valid payload. The 'returns it with its new id' note partially compensates for the absent output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — all four parameters (project_id, punch_item, attachments, run_configurable_validations) are documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value with the punch_item[images][] form-data syntax for uploads, but largely restates the required parameter list already enforced by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Create a new Punch Item in a Project,' a specific verb+resource+scope statement, and reinforces it with the endpoint (POST /rest/v1.1/punch_items). The note that 'calling it again creates another record' clarifies non-idempotent create semantics, implicitly distinguishing it from update/delete siblings, though it never explicitly names alternatives.

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 practical usage context: required parameters (project_id, punch_item), the multipart/form-data requirement for image uploads, and expected error statuses. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over sibling punch item tools (e.g., update_punch_item, add_attachments_to_punch_item), leaving the agent to infer usage scope from the name and endpoint.

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