Bulk Create Plan Template References

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint false, so this is known to be a write operation. The description adds valuable details: company_id defaults to procore_set_config, records are processed in one request with independent failures, and failures carry HTTP statuses with common causes (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses multiple sentences to convey default behavior, error handling, and API context. It is not overly long, but listing required parameters is redundant with the schema. Overall every sentence earns its place except minor repetition.

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 key behavioral aspects: what it does, when to use it, default company_id, partial failure semantics, error statuses, and the API endpoint. However, the structure of each plan_template_reference entry is left undefined in both schema and description, which is a notable gap for correct invocation.

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% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats required parameters and default behavior but does not compensate for the weak schema description of plan_template_references (items: {} with no structure). Thus it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new plan template reference for the specified Procore company.' It also clarifies bulk behavior ('Processes every supplied record in one request') and distinguishes from single-record calls by recommending this for many references at once. The endpoint and API area are provided, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 says 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many plan template references at once,' giving clear context for when to choose this tool. It does not name the single-record alternative or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for basic selection.

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