Create Time And Material Timecard

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

Goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses the request payload nesting, HTTP 201 response with new id, non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), and common error payloads (401, 403, 404). This matches the idempotentHint=false annotation and adds meaningful behavioral detail that an agent needs.

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 a dense paragraph but every sentence contributes useful information: action, parameter handling, default, return behavior, error handling, required param, and API reference. It is not as tight as a two-sentence version, but there is no filler or redundancy, and the most critical information appears early.

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 create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: return value (new id, HTTP 201), defaulting behavior, error statuses, and the resource path. Combined with full schema descriptions for each parameter, the agent has everything needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that project_id is required and defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on parameter interdependencies.

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 'Create a new Time And Material Timecard Entry' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the action (create), the object (Time and Material Timecard), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_timecard_entry or bulk_create_time_and_material_timecards by naming the precise resource type.

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 operational context: top-level parameter passing, project_id defaulting to procore_set_config, and the non-idempotent behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the usage instructions are unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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