Create Submittals From Specs

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), returning HTTP 201 with a new id, and detailing common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is valuable context not available in the schema or annotations.

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 efficient, with each sentence contributing practical information (purpose, defaults, return behavior, errors, required params, endpoint). It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return value (new id with HTTP 201) and error cases. It also mentions defaults and required parameters. However, it does not describe the full response structure or provide explicit guidance on how to construct specification_section_revision_ids, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, and it clarifies required parameters. No additional semantics for specification_section_revision_ids or user_instructions, but the default behavior is a meaningful addition.

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 function: 'creates submittals from specs' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides the endpoint path and API version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_submittal.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, including default behavior for omitted company_id/project_id and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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