Create Purchase Order Contract

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

Annotations already indicate no read-only, destructive, or idempotent guarantees. The description adds that it returns the created object on success and specifies the endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, with two major sentences plus metadata. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of HTTP status and endpoint information, while useful, slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

The description explains the tool's return value and required parameters, but fails to detail the structure of the nested 'purchase_order_contract' object or handle the 'attachments' parameter. Given the lack of an output schema, more description of expected input structure would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions required parameters but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what is in the input schema.

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'), the resource ('Purchase Order Contract'), and the domain ('Commitments in Procore'). It also provides the HTTP method and success status, making the purpose unmistakable among siblings.

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 states to use this tool for creating commitments but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_commitment_contract or create_work_order_contract. Usage is implied but lacking exclusions or comparisons.

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