Create A Copy Of The Action Plan Item In The Item'S Section.

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It mentions the HTTP status code (201) and return of the created object, which is helpful. However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions, or whether the copy includes all attributes. Since annotations already indicate a non-destructive write, the description provides some but not extensive transparency.

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 reasonably concise at three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides parameters and endpoint info. However, the second sentence ('Use this to create...') is slightly redundant with the first, and the structure could be more streamlined.

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 lacks details about the response beyond 'the created object.' Without an output schema, more context is needed (e.g., structure of the created copy, whether it includes all fields, ID assignment). It also omits constraints (e.g., same project required). This is inadequate for a copy operation with no output schema.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little new meaning. It reiterates that 'project_id' and 'plan_item_id' are required, but that is already clear from the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 creates a copy of an Action Plan Item, but the phrase 'creates a new Action Plans' is confusing and may mislead the agent about the exact resource being created. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_action_plan_item' by focusing on copying, though some ambiguity remains.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_action_plan_item' or 'create_a_copy_of_the_action_plan_section'. It simply states 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore,' which is vague and does not clarify the context or exclusivity.

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