Bulk Create Action Plan Template Approvers

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'individual entries can fail independently, so check each one' and failure modes with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also explains payload nesting ('nested under "plan_template_approvers" in the request payload'), which is not visible in annotations or schema. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 relatively long but every sentence provides useful information: purpose, usage, partial-failure behavior, error codes, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and does not waste words, though it could be slightly tightened 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?

For a bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers return behavior ('returns the resulting collection'), failure semantics (independent failures and error payload), and API context (endpoint). It also addresses the default project_id behavior and required parameters, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default for project_id and explaining how top-level arguments map to the nested payload field. However, it does not deeply elaborate on party_ids semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Bulk Create Action Plan Template Approvers for a given Project Action Plan Template.' It distinguishes itself from single-record calls and sibling bulk operations by explicitly mentioning 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls' and clearly naming the target resource.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many action plan template approvers at once.' It also notes a default behavior ('project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and lists required parameters, helping the agent decide when and how to invoke.

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