Email A Time And Material Entry

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'calling it again sends another copy.' It also discloses error payload behavior with common status codes, which is beyond the annotations. The description adds context about the default project_id from procore_set_config and the prerequisite of resolving id with a list tool, enhancing transparency. 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 somewhat long but every sentence contributes value: purpose, parameter defaults, prerequisite resolution, non-idempotency warning, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and progressively adds supporting details. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but the structure is logical and efficient.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, parameter semantics, prerequisite resolution, side effects (non-idempotent), error responses, and API endpoint. The combination of annotations and description leaves no significant behavioral gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, providing basic parameter descriptions. The description adds significant semantics: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'URL path parameter' descriptions, giving agents actionable guidance for parameter values.

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 action: 'Email a Time And Material Entry associated with the specified project.' It identifies the specific resource (Time And Material Entry) and the project context, which distinguishes it from sibling email tools like send_punch_item_email. The endpoint and required parameters further reinforce the tool's specific purpose.

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 useful usage guidance: it explains that project_id defaults from procore_set_config, that id must resolve to an existing record via the list tool, and that repeated calls send another copy. It also notes common error statuses (401/403/404), which helps agents handle failures. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though the resource-specific wording makes that implicit.

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