Create Reinspections

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly mutation. The description adds that it returns the created object with HTTP 201, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations. Given the annotations, the description adds moderate value beyond them.

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 repetitive, first stating 'Creates a Reinspection for an Inspection' and then 'Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore.' It also lists required parameters already covered in the schema. The endpoint and API version are useful but could be more succinct. The text is not tightly written.

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 simple create tool, the description covers the basic action, success response, and required parameters. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., inspection must exist), error conditions, or any validation rules. No output schema exists to compensate. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description merely repeats that these are required, adding no new semantic information. Baseline is 3 as schema already fulfills the need.

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 states it 'Creates a Reinspection for an Inspection,' which clearly identifies the resource. However, it later says 'Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore,' introducing confusion by mixing 'Reinspection' and 'Inspections.' This inconsistency lowers clarity. Sibling tools like create_checklist_inspection exist, but the description does not explicitly differentiate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states 'Use this to create a new Inspections' without context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. No mention of when not to use it or what tool to use instead for regular inspections.

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