Create Timesheet To Budget Configuration

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses HTTP 201 with the new id, explicitly notes non-idempotency (calling again creates another record), and details common failure modes (401, 403, 404). However, it mischaracterizes the object as a 'timesheet' rather than a configuration, and its claim that company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' contradicts the input schema, which marks company_id as required.

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 relatively compact and includes endpoint information and error handling, but the first sentence is misleadingly generic, and the required-parameters sentence duplicates the schema. The structure is somewhat scattered: action, default, behavior, errors, then endpoint at the end. A clearer structure would front-load the actual resource being created (configuration) and resolve the ambiguity.

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 simple create operation with a complete schema and annotations, the description covers important runtime details (status codes, defaults, endpoint) but fails to explain what a 'timesheet_to_budget_configuration' actually is or why an agent would choose this tool over related timesheet operations. The absence of an output schema is compensated somewhat by mentioning the returned id, but the mismatch in resource naming leaves a significant context gap.

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 already documents all three parameters (company_id, line_item_type_id, erp_default_line_item_type_id) with descriptions and required flags, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats the parameter names in a sentence and adds a potentially misleading note about company_id defaulting, which contradicts the schema's required marker. It adds no meaningful semantics for the body parameters.

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 states 'Creates a new timesheet for the specified Procore company,' which directly misidentifies the resource: the tool name and endpoint (POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets/timesheet_to_budget_configuration) indicate it creates a timesheet-to-budget configuration, not a generic timesheet. This conflation is especially problematic given the sibling tool 'create_timesheet', which this description does not distinguish from.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_timesheet, show_timesheet_to_budget_configuration, or update_timesheet_to_budget_configuration. It does state the category (Project Management > Field Productivity) and lists common error conditions, but these are behavior details rather than usage guidance. There are no explicit when/when-not statements.

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