Make Job Title Available To Group

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a new Resource Planning record and returns it with HTTP 201, which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not address potential side effects (e.g., idempotency, failure scenarios) beyond creation, but given the annotations provide basic safety hints (non-destructive, non-read-only), the description adds useful context.

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 concise (two sentences) and includes key information: action, scope, required parameters, and API endpoint. However, it mixes operational info with API references, which could be more structured. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extra details (Procore API path) are useful for technical context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple creation with 3 well-documented params and no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it creates, and required inputs. It lacks details on error handling, idempotency (annotation says false but not explained), and behavior when the availability already exists. Still, it is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

The input schema has full description coverage (100%) for its 3 parameters. The description only lists the required parameters, which is already indicated in the schema. It adds no additional meaning or domain context beyond what the schema provides. At baseline 3, it is adequate but does not enhance understanding.

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's specific action: making a Job Title available to a Group. It uses a specific verb ('Makes'), identifies the resource ('Job Title' and 'Group'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_job_title_from_being_available_to_group'. The description also mentions the underlying action ('make job action') and the HTTP 201 response, which adds precision.

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 includes a usage hint ('Use this to perform the make job action on Resource Planning records') and lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, nor does it mention alternative tools (e.g., the sibling that removes the availability). The guidance is present but minimal, lacking explicit boundaries.

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