Bulk Update Action Plan Item

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds that project_id defaults to procore_set_config, that success returns the modified item, and lists common HTTP error statuses with meanings. This substantially enriches the behavioral profile beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover the shape of plan_items or partial failure behavior.

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 about 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main verb, and includes essential error and endpoint info. No filler, though it packs multiple pieces of information; still efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and a vague array parameter. The description mentions return value and errors, but fails to explain the structure of plan_items or whether the response is a single item or list. For a bulk update tool with an unstructured array, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description adds a default behavior for project_id which is not in the schema, but it also repeats required parameters and offers no detail on the structure of plan_items items (the schema's items object is empty). The default behavior is useful but the plan_items semantics are still opaque, keeping this at 3.

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 'Updates multiple Action Plan Items,' clearly stating the verb and resource. The word 'multiple' distinguishes it from single-item operations, and the endpoint reference further clarifies the scope. It contrasts well with sibling tools like update_action_plan_item and bulk_update_action_plan_item_assignees.

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?

It explicitly says 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many action plan items at once,' giving a clear usage directive. It does not, however, name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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