Create Timecard Entry (Company)

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

The description explicitly discloses that calling it again creates another record (non-idempotent), which aligns with and enriches the idempotentHint annotation. It also details error scenarios (401, 403, 404) and default behavior for company_id, going well beyond the 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 well-organized, with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting details (behavior, errors, defaults, API reference) following logically. Every sentence provides useful information, though the length could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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 description covers behavior, error handling, default values, and a prerequisite link, which is substantial for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. However, the nested timecard_entry object's internal structure is left to the schema's opaque 'additionalProperties: {}', and the description does not clarify what fields are expected within it.

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 describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about company_id defaulting to procore_set_config and a link for getting a contact's party_id, but it does not elaborate on the nested timecard_entry object's required fields, and the default statement somewhat conflicts with the schema's required flag.

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 it creates a new Timecard Entry and identifies the company-scoped endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like create_timecard_entry_project or create_timecard_entry_v1_0, relying on the title and endpoint path to convey 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description mentions required parameters and a prerequisite link for getting party_id, but does not help the agent choose between company-level and project-level timecard entry creation tools.

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