Creates A New Inter-Project Transfer.

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the Draft state, HTTP 201 return with the new id, non-idempotency, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. It also explains the defaulting behavior from procore_set_config, which is critical and not evident from annotations or schema 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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by defaulting behavior, non-idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, state, defaults, non-idempotency, error payloads, and the exact API endpoint. It mentions the return value (new id with HTTP 201) which is essential for a creation tool. A description of the full response structure would be nice, but not strictly necessary given the API reference.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates required parameters, but does not add detail for other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool 'Creates a new inter-project transfer document in Draft state with the specified header details.' This specifies the verb (creates), resource (inter-project transfer), and state (Draft), distinguishing it from sibling tools that get, update, recycle, or delete inter-project transfers.

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: it notes that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config, and warns that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this creation tool is appropriate.

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