Bulk Create Action Plan Template Receivers

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: partial failure semantics ('individual entries can fail independently, so check each one'), the error payload structure with HTTP status, and common error codes (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotations and is critical for using a bulk operation safely.

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, then provides usage guidance, parameter handling, error semantics, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

For a bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, when to prefer it, how to pass parameters, the default project_id behavior, independent per-entry failures, error payload format, required params, and the endpoint. This is complete enough to guide correct invocation and outcome interpretation.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that fields should be passed as top-level arguments and are nested under 'plan_template_receivers' in the payload, and that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted. This meaningfully helps invocation.

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 uses specific verb+resource: 'Bulk Create Action Plan Template Receivers for a given Project Action Plan Template.' It clearly distinguishes from single-record creation by saying 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls,' which sets it apart from sibling create_action_plan_template_receiver.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many action plan template receivers at once.' Also provides practical usage details like parameter placement, project_id default from procore_set_config, and error handling expectations, which helps the agent decide and invoke correctly.

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