Bulk Create Field Rules (Project Scope)

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

Annotations already indicate it's a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: independent per-item validation, partial failure responses, HTTP status error codes (401/403/404), and default values from procore_set_config. This goes well beyond the annotations and prepares the agent for real-world failure modes.

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 contains useful information but is somewhat repetitive: 'Each item is validated independently; the response reports successes and failures per item' is echoed later with 'individual entries can fail independently, so check each one.' The text could be trimmed by merging these statements. It is structured with relevant details, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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?

This is a bulk operation with no output schema, and the description fails to explain how the actual field rules are supplied. The input schema only lists company_id, project_id, and Accept-Language, with no parameter for the rule definitions. The description mentions creating multiple rules but does not say where the rules come from or how they are structured. This is a critical gap for an agent trying 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates they are required. No extra semantics are provided for Accept-Language, but the defaults are a valuable addition.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Creates multiple project-scoped field rules in a single request.' It clearly distinguishes from single-record creation and includes the scope (project), making its purpose unambiguous. It also names the endpoint and API version, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many field rules at once.' This provides a clear use case and an implied alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for company-scoped rules) or name the company-scoped bulk alternative, so it falls short of full exclusivity guidance.

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