Create Witness Statement

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that fields are flattened as top-level arguments (nested under 'witness_statement' internally), project_id defaults from procore_set_config, and the API returns HTTP 201 with the new id. It explicitly warns that repeated calls create duplicate records, matching idempotentHint=false. Error behavior is disclosed (401/403/404). No contradiction with 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential operational details. Every sentence provides value: payload flattening, default project_id, response/idempotency, error codes, required params, and API endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, required parameters, request payload shape, response status, idempotency behavior, error modes, and the actual API endpoint. It also references the Procore tool area (Project Management > Incidents). No significant gaps.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds crucial semantic framing: fields are passed as top-level arguments (no wrapping needed), and project_id defaults when omitted. It also highlights required parameters. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

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+resource+scope: 'Creates a new witness statement in the specified Procore project.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_witness_statements, show_witness_statement, update_witness_statement, and destroy_witness_statement by emphasizing creation. No ambiguity.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating witness statements, and notes that calling it again creates another record, signaling non-idempotent use. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use update_witness_statement to modify'), but the scope is unambiguous. It also provides guidance on required parameters and project_id defaulting, which helps the agent decide when and how to invoke it.

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