Create Todo (Deprecated)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent), returns HTTP 201 with the new id, and lists common failure statuses (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id). These details meaningfully supplement the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and help the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 information-dense but somewhat repetitive about deprecation ('This endpoint has been deprecated', 'DEPRECATED: Procore has deprecated this endpoint', 'prefer a newer version'). Each sentence contributes purpose, alternative, behavior, failure modes, required params, and endpoint info. The redundancy slightly reduces conciseness, but the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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 operation with no output schema, the description explains the return value (new id with HTTP 201), non-idempotency, failure modes, and deprecation context. The nested todo object structure is not detailed, but the schema covers it. The description is largely complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and marks them required. The description merely restates 'Required parameters: project_id, todo' without adding extra semantics about the todo object's structure or constraints. The nested todo object remains vague (described as 'JSON request body field — toDo object'), but the description doesn't compensate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Create a ToDo Item for a specified Project.' It also specifies the successful outcome ('returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)') and distinguishes this deprecated endpoint by directing users to alternatives, which is strong purpose clarification.

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 explicitly warns that the endpoint is deprecated, recommends using [/rest/v1/calendar-items) instead, and tells the agent to use procore_search_endpoints to find a newer version. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, which is exactly what usage guidelines should provide.

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