Bulk Create Action Plan Item Assignees

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

The description discloses that all records are processed in one request, that individual entries can fail independently, and that failures return HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) with common causes. It also reveals the project_id defaulting behavior. These go well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) and provide actionable operational 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 four sentences of dense, useful content. It front-loads the purpose, then usage, behavior, errors, and API reference with no filler. Slight typo ('an new') aside, it is effectively concise.

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 bulk write operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, partial-failure behavior, common error codes, and parameter defaults. It stops short of explaining the exact response shape when some entries fail, but overall it is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

All three parameters have descriptive schema entries (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The description adds that project_id defaults from procore_set_config and repeats the required parameters, but does not elaborate on the structure of the plan_item_assignees array beyond calling them 'records.' It provides marginal added meaning over 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 creates action plan item assignees in a Procore project, and explicitly distinguishes it from repeated single-record calls by recommending it for bulk operations. The verb 'bulk create' is apparent and the resource is specific, separating it from update/delete/template siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many action plan item assignees at once.' It also notes the project_id default behavior, which informs usage. It does not name alternatives like bulk_update, but the single-record distinction is sufficient.

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