Generates PDF Document

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

The description adds valuable error handling details (401/403/404 statuses) and the project_id default behavior, which go beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false matches the write operation). Missing async status polling info, but the provided error behavior is helpful.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded. The description includes redundant generic text ('Acts on the generates PDF document...') and repeats 'Required parameters: project_id' which is already in the schema, adding unnecessary length.

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 provides the return type (URL), required parameter, error payload details, filtering documentation link, and API endpoint. It lacks an explicit statement about the PDF content (users) and whether the generation is asynchronous, but given the schema and endpoint, it's reasonably complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds one extra semantic: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, which is not in the schema. However, this is the only addition, and it's also repeated in the description's 'Required parameters' line.

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 generates a PDF document from a project and returns a URL to the PDF file. The endpoint and 'Core > Directory' context indicate it targets the project directory, though it doesn't explicitly name 'users' or differentiate from other PDF export 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The only usage hint is that project_id defaults to the config value, but there's no mention of when to prefer this over other PDF generation tools like create_pdf_export_for_a_prime_contract.

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