Create Signature For Timesheet

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it notes that calling again creates another record (reinforcing non-idempotency), explains that fields are nested under 'signature' in the payload, describes the default for company_id, and details common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint flags.

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 dense but well-structured, with each sentence contributing valuable information: purpose, payload handling, default behavior, idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. No fluff or redundancy, though it is slightly long for an AI to parse quickly.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)') and covers errors, permissions, and endpoint. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could have explicitly mentioned the project-level sibling for alternative use cases.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning by explaining that top-level arguments are nested under 'signature' in the request payload and that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value. This goes beyond the schema's parameter-level descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Create new Signature associated with the specified Company.' It specifies the resource (Signature), the verb (create), and the scope (Company), and the endpoint at the end further confirms the company-level scope, distinguishing it from project-level signature tools among 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 provides some usage context, such as company_id defaulting to procore_set_config and required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_signature_for_timesheet_project. The company scope is implied but not contrasted with the project-level alternative.

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