Create Rounding Configuration

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

Annotations only state readOnly=false, idempotent=false, etc. The description goes well beyond by explicitly noting non-idempotent behavior, error payload format with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), the payload nesting handled for the agent, and the company_id default. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the structured fields.

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 somewhat long but efficient; every sentence adds meaningful information (purpose, payload handling, default, idempotency, errors, required params, endpoint). The API category and endpoint could be seen as extra, but they are not wasteful.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (new id with HTTP 201), common failure modes, and required parameters. It doesn't detail the full returned object structure, but that is likely acceptable for this simple use case.

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?

Although the schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantics: fields should be passed as top-level arguments even though they nest under 'rounding_configuration' in the actual request, and company_id can be omitted to use the configured default. These details are not inferrable from the schema alone.

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 'Creates a new rounding configuration for the specified Procore company' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies create semantics by noting 'calling it again creates another record' and provides the endpoint, distinguishing it from update/show/delete 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?

Provides useful usage context: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, the tool is non-idempotent (calling again creates another record), and company_id is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_rounding_configuration or state when not to use this tool versus those.

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