Create RFQ Response

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

The description discloses the HTTP status code (201) and that the object is returned on success, adding some value beyond annotations. However, it does not describe behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. Annotations already provide `readOnlyHint=false` and `destructiveHint=false`.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the main purpose. It is reasonably concise, though it could remove the redundant 'Creates a new Commitments' phrasing to be tighter.

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 lack of an output schema and the presence of a nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the returned object or provide guidance on handling the nested `rfq_response` field. The tool's context among many siblings is not addressed.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The nested `rfq_response` parameter is still left under-documented by both the schema and description.

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 it creates a new Response in an RFQ and mentions the Procore API domain (Construction Financials > Commitments). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like `create_rfq` and `create_rfq_quote` by specifying the resource type, though the term 'Commitments' may cause slight confusion.

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 gives minimal guidance: 'Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore.' It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like `create_rfq_quote`, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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