Create Requisition (Subcontractor Invoices) For Commitment

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent creation. The description adds the HTTP 201 success response and the specific API version and endpoint, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but does not disclose additional traits like side effects or error conditions.

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 (two sentences plus API info) but contains a typo ('Commitments' instead of 'Requisition'). It front-loads key information but the API endpoint detail is somewhat extraneous. Still efficient overall.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of a nested 'requisition' object parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the requisition object, expected response details beyond 'returns the created object', or prerequisites (e.g., commitment existence). More completeness is needed for a creation tool with complex parameters.

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 input schema fully documents each parameter. The description redundantly states required parameters but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Requisition/Subcontractor Invoices), and the context (for a specified Commitment). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the exact resource and purpose, and mentions required parameters and the API endpoint.

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 implies usage ('Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore') but contains a typo (Commitments vs Requisition). It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or list prerequisites beyond required parameters.

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