Bulk Create Action Plans For Locations

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), not idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and has side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context: the endpoint enqueues background jobs asynchronously, returns created collection with HTTP 201, and copies all sections/items/assignees/references from the template. It also warns of partial failures. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 well-organized: starts with the core action, then adds async behavior, template requirement, copy details, use case, partial failures, required parameters, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the most important information. While a bit long, every sentence contributes useful detail.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return: 'returns the created collection (HTTP 201)' and notes partial failures. It covers async behavior, template state requirements, and copying details. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 five parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that company_id and project_id are URL path parameters, and template_id, location_id, and number_of_plans are JSON body fields. It also notes the valid range for number_of_plans (1-1000), which is not in the schema. This extra context enhances understanding.

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's action: 'Creates multiple Action Plans from a single Action Plan Template at a specified location.' It specifies the verb (creates), resource (Action Plans), and scope (from template at location). This distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_create_action_plan_item_assignees, which create other entities.

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 advises when to use: 'to create many Action Plans records in a single request.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'The template must be in 'published' status. Templates in 'draft' or 'in_revision' status cannot be used.' It mentions partial failures but does not compare directly to single-plan creation siblings, which would be a small improvement.

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