Create Submittal Response

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

Goes beyond annotations: discloses that fields are auto-unwrapped from the payload, describes the HTTP 201 response with new id, explicitly states calling again creates another record (non-idempotent), and lists common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, payload handling, defaulting, non-idempotence, error behavior, required parameters, and API location. No redundant or filler content; information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 three-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it creates, how to pass fields, default behavior, expected response, error handling, and endpoint. Annotations cover safety traits, so no critical information is missing.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics: fields should be passed as top-level arguments despite the API expecting them nested under 'submittal_response', and project_id defaults to the configured value. This practical guidance goes beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Submittal Response for the specified Project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_submittal_response and list_submittal_responses_project. The scope and action are unambiguous.

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 clear context: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, lists required parameters, and notes non-idempotent behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over update_submittal_response or delete_a_response, which would earn a 5.

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