Create Signature For Timesheet

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: fields are wrapped under a 'signature' object, project_id defaults from config, repeated calls create duplicates (non-idempotent), and failure modes include common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) with explanations. This adds substantial value over the annotation flags and aligns with the write operation implied by readOnlyHint=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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, payload wrapping, defaulting, non-idempotency, failure handling, required params, API category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids fluff.

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 no output schema and simple annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the action, payload structure, defaults, return value (new id with HTTP 201), non-idempotency, common error statuses, and exact API endpoint. The agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explicitly lists required parameters and explains that project_id defaults to the configured value. This helps the agent understand parameter optionality and default behavior beyond the schema 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 starts with 'Create new Signature associated with the specified Project', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from company-level or time-and-material signature tools. It further specifies the timesheet context via the endpoint, and the name/title align perfectly with the described action.

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?

It gives clear context for use: create a timesheet signature for a project, with project_id defaulting to the procore_set_config value when omitted. It also notes required parameters and non-idempotent behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for company-level signatures, leaving some room for an agent to infer the boundary.

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