Create Trade

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

The description substantially enriches the annotation signals. It explicitly states that calling it again creates another record (non-idempotent, matching idempotentHint=false), explains the HTTP 201 response with the new id, and details common failure modes (401, 403, 404). It also reveals that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, which is not available in annotations. This is rich behavioral context.

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 efficiently packed: each sentence adds distinct value—what it does, how to pass parameters, the company_id default, the response, non-idempotency, error handling, and the API reference. No filler or repetition; it is appropriately sized for a create-tool with this complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: the action, required parameters, default behavior, return value with status code, error scenarios, and the API endpoint. The return value (new id) is stated despite no output schema. The API location and endpoint provide full context for invocation.

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 meaningful semantics by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'trade' in the payload, and that company_id defaults to the configured value. This clarifies the request structure beyond the raw schema, though individual parameter constraints are already documented.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a Trade associated to a Company.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trades and show_trade. It also specifies the company association and the API endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need to create a Trade, and it notes that company_id is required (with a default from config). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools, but for a create operation the usage is reasonably clear. No exclusions are mentioned, which aligns with a 'clear context, no exclusions' score.

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