Creates Or Updates Project Date

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-readonly and non-idempotent. The description adds useful details such as HTTP 201 on creation, the fact that calling it again creates another record, and common error statuses (401/403/404). However, the internal inconsistency between 'updates the date' and 'calling it again creates another record' undermines transparency about the tool's actual behavior.

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 reasonably concise, leading with the main action and including the endpoint and error details. It avoids excessive fluff, though it redundantly states required parameters and could resolve the create/update ambiguity with clearer phrasing.

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 description covers error handling, defaulting, and endpoint, but it fails to clarify the core create-versus-update behavior and does not explain the structure of the project_dates parameter. There is no output schema, so return values are only partially described. For a mutation with open-world semantics, this is an incomplete guide for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by stating that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config, which is not in the schema. However, the project_dates parameter remains vague in both description and schema (only described as 'JSON request body field'), so the added value is real but limited.

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 'associates a project with a given project date or updates the date,' but later says it creates a new record each time, creating ambiguity about whether it truly updates. It does name a specific resource and endpoint, but it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like show_project_date or list_project_dates.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions project_id defaulting and required parameters, but does not state contexts like 'use this to create a new project date' or direct the agent to other tools for viewing or updating. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint and name.

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