Create Support Pin

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the created object with HTTP 201, which is standard and adds mild transparency. It does not discuss idempotency, auth, or side effects beyond creation. Given annotations, the bar is lower; description adds some value but not rich context.

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 consists of two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides necessary context and API details. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Every part adds value, though the API version and endpoint info might be considered extra for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has low complexity (1 param, no output schema). The description covers creation and return. However, it fails to explain what a 'support pin' is or the meaning of 'Company Settings', which could be useful for an agent deeply selecting tools. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more informative.

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 provides a clear description for the single parameter 'company_id'. The description reiterates that it is required. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the description does not add significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb 'Creates' and the resource 'support pin'. It specifies the required parameter and domain (Company Settings). However, the mention of 'Company Settings' may cause confusion about whether the tool creates a support pin or a setting. It distinguishes from the sibling 'fetch_active_support_pin' by indicating creation vs retrieval.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Company Settings in Procore', providing context for when to use. It lists the required parameter. But it does not mention when not to use, nor does it reference alternatives like 'fetch_active_support_pin'. Lack of exclusion criteria limits guidance.

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