Create Timesheet

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

The description discloses key behavioral details: fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'timesheet' in the payload, project_id defaults from config, successful creation returns HTTP 201 with the new id, and repeated calls create duplicates. It also explains error payload formats and common HTTP status codes, adding substantial value 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence provides distinct, useful information (parameter handling, default behavior, response format, error handling, endpoint). No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it creates, required parameters, response format (201 with id), error behaviors, endpoint, and integration with the config default. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external lookup.

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 both parameters, but the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that project_id can default from procore_set_config, and that parameters should be passed as top-level arguments even though they are nested in the request body. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 action ('Create new Timesheet') and the association with a Project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_timesheet, delete_timesheet, or show_a_timesheet. It also specifies the endpoint, reinforcing its unique role.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when creating a new timesheet for a project. It notes that project_id can be omitted and defaults from procore_set_config, and that calling again creates another record, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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