Bulk Create Action Plan Template References

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: it processes all records in one request, individual entries can fail independently (so each must be checked), and error payloads carry HTTP status codes with common 401/403/404 causes. It also reveals that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, adding genuine 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 that sequentially cover purpose, usage guidance, execution behavior, error handling, and endpoint. Every sentence carries useful information, though the 'Required parameters' line partially duplicates the schema. The length is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, when to use it, partial-failure semantics, common error codes, required params, and the API endpoint. The main missing piece is the structure of plan_template_references entries, which the agent must infer or look up elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about project_id defaulting to the procore_set_config value when omitted. However, the core plan_template_references array items are untyped in the schema and the description does not explain their required structure, leaving a significant gap for a bulk-create call.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource+scope statement: 'Creates an new action plan template reference in the specified Procore project.' It also distinguishes itself from single-record alternatives by saying to prefer bulk creation for many references, and it names the endpoint for completeness.

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 usage guidance is present: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many action plan template references at once.' It clearly implies when to use this tool, though it does not name the specific single-record sibling or state explicit when-not conditions.

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