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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the created object with HTTP 201, and cites the API endpoint. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., any impact on original template) or required permissions, so it adds only marginal value beyond 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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose, followed by usage and technical details. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is highly 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?

For a simple copy operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, required parameters, and API endpoint. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of source template section) or the structure of the returned object, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about parameter placement: project_id is a URL path parameter, template_section_id is a JSON request body field. This additional detail aids the agent in correctly structuring the request.

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 that the tool creates a copy of an Action Plan Template Section. The verb 'create a copy' and resource 'Action Plan Template Section' are specific. However, the phrase 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore' slightly confuses the purpose of copying a section versus creating a whole plan. It differentiates from siblings like company-level copy by specifying 'in the project'.

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 a usage context: 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore.' It lists required parameters (project_id, template_section_id) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copying from company template). No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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