Save Stamp

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

The description adds valuable constraints beyond annotations: company_id/project_id defaulting to config values, return of Procore's response, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). These explain side effects and failure modes. Annotations only provide hints about read-only/idempotency, so this context is meaningful.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: main action, config defaults, response/error behavior, and API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words.

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 tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, but the description compensates with endpoint, required params, defaults, and error codes. It lacks details on the format of nested objects like font_style, but schema descriptions partially cover that. Overall, it provides enough context for basic invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by stating that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and by listing required parameters. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, adding operational context.

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 a specific action: 'Saves a new stamp for a specific company, project, and document.' This distinguishes it from siblings like update_stamp, delete_stamp, and get_stamps. The verb 'saves' and resource 'stamp' are unambiguous.

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?

It implies usage for creating a new stamp by stating 'Saves a new stamp' and providing the POST endpoint. It also notes default values from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus update_stamp or delete_stamp, nor give exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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