Creates A New Adjustment Document.

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating that calling again creates another record (reinforcing idempotentHint=false), describing error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404), and explaining defaulting behavior and the Draft status. These are concrete behavioral details not derivable from the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the primary creation action and then efficiently delivers defaults, non-idempotency, error handling, and the API endpoint. Every sentence contributes a distinct, useful fact with no repetitive filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers return value (new id, HTTP 201), error statuses, defaults, required parameters, and the API endpoint. This is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret common responses.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to configured values when omitted and that item_ids are optional and can be added later. This exceeds the baseline but does not detail each parameter individually.

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 an adjustment document, adds that it is created in Draft status, and mentions it returns the document with a new id (HTTP 201). This specific verb-resource pairing and status detail distinguish it from read/update/delete sibling tools.

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?

It provides useful context: line items can be added after creation, and company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for adding line items later, so it gives clear context without a full when-not-to-use statement.

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