Bulk Update Action Plan Item Assignees

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: returns the modified assignee on success, and explains failure payloads with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond what annotations convey and helps the agent anticipate errors. No contradictions with 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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value: usage guidance, default behavior, return/error info, required params, and API reference. Slightly verbose but not wasteful, and well organized.

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?

Given there is no output schema and the plan_item_assignees parameter has a vague schema description, the description does not fully explain the input array structure or the response shape (only mentions 'Returns the modified action plan item assignee'). It covers selection and basic invocation, but not enough detail for a bulk operation with nested parameters. The endpoint and error info help, but gaps remain.

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 a meaningful extra: 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' which is not in the schema and is important for invocation. It also lists required parameters, though that mirrors the schema's required array. It does not clarify the structure of plan_item_assignees, but the schema also lacks that detail.

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 clearly states it updates existing action plan item assignees in a Procore project and explicitly distinguishes itself from single-record calls by saying 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many action plan item assignees at once.' This both names the verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like update_action_plan_item_assignee.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this for many assignees at once, and implies not to use it for single records by referencing 'repeated single-record calls' as an alternative. It also notes the project_id default behavior, which is contextual usage information beyond the schema.

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