Create Work Activity

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP 201 response and the endpoint, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (despite openWorldHint) or constraints like unique name validation.

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 contains repetitive phrases ('Creates a Work Activity... Use this to create a new Incidents... Creates a new Incidents') and is not concise. Each sentence should earn its place, and here there is unnecessary duplication.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value and includes endpoint info. However, it fails to mention that the active parameter is optional or describe any error behavior. The confusing Incidents reference also undermines completeness.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description redundantly lists required parameters but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 states it creates a Work Activity but also mentions 'Use this to create a new Incidents,' which is confusing and may mislead about the resource being created. The verb and resource are somewhat clear, but the Incidents reference detracts from clarity.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use this to create a new Incidents in Procore.' There is no mention of when to use this tool versus siblings like update_work_activity or create_incident, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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