Bulk Create Triggers (Deprecated)

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). It discloses partial failure behavior: 'individual entries can fail independently, so check each one' and describes error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). The deprecation date and removal schedule are also critical behavioral context not inferable from 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 dense but not bloated; every sentence provides actionable information. It is front-loaded with the core action and constraints, followed by deprecation, usage, error handling, and API reference. Slightly long, but the length is justified by the tool's deprecation status and partial-failure complexity.

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 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers return behavior (resulting collection with independent failures), error cases, and API endpoint. However, it lacks an explicit explanation of how the actual trigger records are provided in the request body (only hook_id is in the schema), which is a notable omission given the tool's purpose. The deprecation and alternative-finding guidance partially compensate.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining hook_id's role as a parent record that must be resolved first ('resolve it with the matching list tool first') and mentions company/project scope constraints. However, it does not explicitly describe how the trigger data payload is structured or passed (likely relying on openWorldHint), leaving some semantic gap.

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 webhook triggers in a single request' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from single-record creation alternatives ('Prefer this over repeated single-record calls') and from sibling bulk tools by noting triggers must be within the same hook. The deprecated status and version guidance further clarify its role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many triggers at once.' It also tells when not to use it (deprecated, prefer newer version via procore_search_endpoints) and includes a prerequisite: 'hook_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' Constraints like max 500 and same-hook requirement give clear operational boundaries.

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