Merges One Or More PDFs Of A Requisition Into A Single PDF

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds context about polling vs. email and the response (download URL or job handle), but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or error conditions.

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 but contains extraneous details like the Procore API path and endpoint, which are not essential for an agent. It could be more concise without losing meaning.

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 the two usage modes and output, but lacks details on error handling, the full structure of the 'files' parameter (e.g., other file types), and the format of the polling URL. With no output schema, more return value explanation would be beneficial.

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 100% coverage, so the description adds limited value. However, it provides an example payload for the 'files' parameter, demonstrating the structure with a cover sheet type, which aids understanding beyond the schema.

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 merges PDFs of a requisition into a single PDF, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, such as other PDF generation or merge tools, relying on the distinctive name.

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 explains two usage modes (polling vs. email) and provides clear guidance on when to use each. It gives an example payload and context for Commitments, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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