Create Resource

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds the success response (HTTP 201) and that the created object is returned, but no additional behavioral details like permissions, side effects, or rate limits are provided.

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 relatively concise, with the main purpose front-loaded. However, it contains a slight redundancy ('Creates a new Schedule (Legacy) records' repeated). Overall, it is efficient and readable.

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 complexity (nested 'resource' object with no defined shape, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description lacks completeness. It does not clarify the internal structure of the resource object, how to construct it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_resource_project'. The reference to 'Schedule (Legacy)' helps slightly but overall insufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the description merely restates required parameters. It adds no new meaning to the parameters, such as explaining the structure of the 'resource' object (which is a free-form object with additionalProperties). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool creates a Resource associated with a Project, but it also mentions 'Schedule (Legacy) records' which may cause confusion about the resource type. The verb and resource are specific, and the purpose is generally distinguishable from 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 includes basic context ('Use this to create a new Schedule (Legacy) records in Procore') and lists required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or non-use cases.

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