Bulk Create Field Rules

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

Annotations only indicate false readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description adds valuable behavior: per-item independent validation, mixed success/failure responses, error payload specifics (401/403/404), and the company_id default. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate outcomes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense paragraph with no filler; each sentence covers a distinct aspect (purpose, validation, usage preference, default, error handling, required params, endpoint). It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately structured for a bulk API tool.

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?

Despite covering validation and errors, the description omits how to specify the actual field rules to be created. The input schema only lists company_id and Accept-Language, with no array parameter for the rule definitions. The description says 'Processes every supplied record' but never explains where those records come from, leaving a critical gap for correct invocation. No output schema exists, and the response format is only vaguely described as 'returns the resulting collection.'

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 both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for company_id (defaults to procore_set_config when omitted), which is helpful, but this seemingly conflicts with the schema's 'required' declaration. It adds no additional meaning for Accept-Language, and the key 'field rules' data is not represented as a parameter at all.

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 'Creates multiple field rules in a single request,' specifying the verb (creates), resource (field rules), and mode (bulk). It also distinguishes this tool from repeated single-record calls by recommending it for many field rules at once, differentiating it from the sibling create_field_rule.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many field rules at once,' providing a clear when-to-use guideline. It also gives context about company_id defaulting and per-item failure handling, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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