Bulk Create Action Plan References

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the operation processes all records in one request, returns a collection, permits independent entry failures, and describes the error payload with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context not available from annotations or schema.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, defaults, failure semantics, and endpoint reference. Every sentence contributes meaningful information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 key operational aspects: bulk behavior, partial failure, project_id default, and error codes. However, the plan_references parameter is an untyped array with a vague schema description, and the description does not clarify what fields each reference object needs, leaving some ambiguity for constructing correct input. Since there is no output schema, the description compensates for most but not all gaps.

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% for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior of project_id when omitted, which helps the agent understand configuration interactions. It does not add semantics for completion_mode or plan_references beyond what the schema already provides.

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 an action plan reference in a specified Procore project, uses the specific verb 'creates', and names the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the single-record sibling by explicitly framing itself as the bulk alternative ('Prefer this over repeated single-record calls').

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 explicitly says to use this when handling many action plan references at once and names the alternative (repeated single-record calls). It also provides operational context like the project_id default from procore_set_config, giving an agent clear conditions for selection.

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