Create Unit Of Measure

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), the return value ('Returns the newly created UOM resource'), the default for company_id via procore_set_config, and common error scenarios (401 expired token, 403 no permission, 404 unresolved id). This is rich behavioral detail not present in 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 relatively long but tightly packed with useful information—purpose, permissions, uniqueness, return value, payload wrapper, default company_id, non-idempotency, error handling, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, earning a strong score despite its length.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return behavior ('Returns the newly created UOM resource... with its new id (HTTP 201)'), error responses, auth requirements, and parameter defaults. This makes the tool self-contained and easy to invoke correctly.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that fields are nested under 'uom' in the payload, which helps the agent understand optionality and request construction.

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 new custom Unit of Measure (UOM) for the company.' It clearly distinguishes this create operation from sibling tools like list_units_of_measure, show_unit_of_measure, update_unit_of_measure, and delete_unit_of_measure by stating it creates and returns a new resource.

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 for use: it states that 'Only company admins can call this endpoint' and explains the uniqueness requirement for `name`. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative tool (e.g., using update_unit_of_measure for modifications), so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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