Create Punch Item Comment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), expected success status (HTTP 201, returns new id), and typical error patterns (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id). This enriches the agent's mental model significantly beyond what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint flags alone 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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, behavior, error handling, required params, and API reference. It packs substantial information without redundancy, making it concise for its informative density.

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 4 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, the dependency on an existing parent record, the non-idempotent behavior, and common failures. It doesn't need to repeat schema-level details about comment/attachments, as those are sufficiently documented 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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful prerequisite context for the id parameter ('must identify an existing parent record — resolve with list tool'), highlights required parameters, and the schema itself already provides inline distinctions (path vs query). The description slightly exceeds the baseline by clarifying the required relationship.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Create a new Punch Item Comment in a Project') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the parent scope. Its reference to the Procore API endpoint and necessary prerequisites further nails down 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 clearly states that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' giving an explicit prerequisite and pointing to the list tool for ID resolution. It doesn't explicitly call out when not to use the tool vs. alternatives like other comment-creation tools, but the context is strong enough for most cases.

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