Create RFQ Quote

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already indicate a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds limited value beyond stating the HTTP 201 response and API endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects or rate limits.

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, front-loading the purpose and including useful API details. It contains a few extra sentences but remains efficient without being overly verbose.

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 covers creation purpose, required parameters, and success response (HTTP 201). However, it lacks details about the return object structure and does not explain the nested rfq_quote parameter, which is an open object. Given the tool's complexity and missing output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description merely repeats the parameter names without adding deeper semantic meaning, such as the expected structure of rfq_quote.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Quote in a specified RFQ', and explicitly mentions creating 'Commitments in Procore'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like update_rfq_quote.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore' and lists required parameters, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools (e.g., update_rfq_quote) or specify when not to use.

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