Bulk-Create Groups In A Layer

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

Discloses partial failure behavior ('individual entries can fail independently') and typical HTTP error codes (401/403/404), which is valuable beyond annotations. However, the use of 'atomically' in the first sentence somewhat contradicts the later statement about independent failures, making the behavioral description strong but not perfectly consistent.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, usage rationale, defaults, prerequisites, behavior, errors, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence provides useful information without fluff.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, errors, and prerequisites thoroughly. The main gap is the lack of detail on the shape of each group item (the groups array schema items are empty) and the exact return structure, though the absence of an output schema makes this a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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?

The schema already describes all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial context: defaults for company_id/project_id and the prerequisite to resolve layer_id. However, the claim that company_id/project_id default when omitted conflicts with the schema marking them required, which reduces clarity.

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 'Create multiple groups in a single layer atomically,' a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from the sibling create_a_new_group by emphasizing bulk operations. It also mentions replacing the N-round-trip pattern, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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 instructs to 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many bulk-create groups at once,' and warns that layer_id must be resolved via the matching list tool first. It also describes defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, giving clear context on prerequisites and configuration.

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