Create Trade

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds that it returns the created object with HTTP 201, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional traits like expected side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 mostly clear but contains redundant sentences (e.g., 'Use this to create a new Company Settings in Procore' is repeated conceptually). It could be trimmed to one concise statement without losing information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides adequate context: HTTP 201 success response and required parameter. However, it lacks error conditions, authentication context, and explanation of what a Trade is in the Procore domain (especially given the confusing reference to Company Settings).

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 baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that company_id is required and lists the endpoint path. It does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions for 'name' and 'active', such as constraints or formatting hints.

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 Trade associated to a Company, but then incorrectly refers to 'Company Settings' (e.g., 'Use this to create a new Company Settings in Procore'). This inconsistency muddles the purpose and could confuse the agent about what resource is being created.

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 mentions required parameters (company_id) and the HTTP endpoint, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_trades, show_trade). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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