Create A Copy Of The Action Plan Section In The Action Plan Of The Section.

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) and describes the 'view' parameter effect, but does not explain side effects like whether the copy includes nested items or what happens with duplicates.

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 somewhat repetitive and contains awkward phrasing ('Create a copy of the Action Plan Section in the Action Plan of the Section', 'creates a new Action Plans'). The view parameter explanation could be more integrated. It is not as concise as it could be.

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 important context for a mutation operation: no information on idempotency, error scenarios, prerequisites (source section must exist), or the structure of the created object beyond mentioning 'view'. Output schema is absent, but the description could still clarify what gets copied.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides. It repeats required parameters and explains the view parameter values, which are already documented in the schema.

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 Section, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_section' or other copy tools, which limits the score to 4.

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 provides vague usage advice ('Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore') and lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No when-not-to-use information is given.

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