Create Specification Set

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns the new record with its ID (HTTP 201), explicitly states repeated calls create additional records, and describes common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). This meaningfully aids an agent in anticipating side effects and errors.

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 information-dense and well-structured, starting with the primary purpose, then default behavior, side effects, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence adds useful context, though including the full endpoint path is slightly redundant given the name and schema, but not excessive.

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 straightforward create operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers return value (new id), success status, defaulting behavior, required parameters, and common errors. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing about idempotency or project_id resolution.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial semantic: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, which is not present in the schema. It also reiterates required parameters but does not substantially enrich date or name beyond their 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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Specification Set in the specified project.' It distinguishes this create operation from the many list/show/update specification set tools present in the sibling list, and explicitly names the target resource and scope.

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 implies usage by stating it creates a new record and notes that calling it again creates another, which hints at non-idempotency. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the default project_id behavior and required parameters provide some contextual guidance.

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