Create A Batch Of BIM Plans

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it returns HTTP 201 on success, is non-idempotent ('calling it again creates another record'), and explains common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds useful context about auth requirements and failure modes that the annotations do not fully convey.

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 efficient, delivering the core purpose, return behavior, error handling, required params, and endpoint in four succinct sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary fluff, though minor redundancy exists between 'Creates a new batch' and 'Creates the batch.'

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 description covers non-idempotency, return id, error statuses, and the endpoint, which is fairly complete for a batch creation tool. However, it omits critical details about the shape of the bim_plans array payload (schema items are empty), and there is no mention of batch size limits. Given that the schema lacks item structure, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the required parameters but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as the expected structure of items in bim_plans or allowed values for view. It does not compensate for the schema's generic 'JSON request body field' phrasing.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new batch in Procore.' It further clarifies the behavior by explaining that it returns the batch with a new id (HTTP 201) and that re-invocation creates another record, distinguishing it from idempotent operations. The tool name and description also differentiate it from single-resource siblings like create_bim_plan.

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 mentions required parameters and the API endpoint, giving some context for use. However, it does not explicitly compare this batch operation to the singular create_bim_plan or specify when to prefer it over alternatives. The batch context is implied by the name and description but not stated as a guideline.

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