Create Action Plan

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the successful HTTP 201 response and includes API endpoint details. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates overwrite existing data, or error response patterns. This adds some value but not rich context 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: states purpose, lists required parameters, provides API reference. Every sentence adds distinct value. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, required inputs, and API reference. It lacks details on error conditions, permission needs, or behavior when optional fields are omitted. However, given the annotations provide safety info and schema covers parameters, this is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description only lists the required parameters (project_id, title, plan_type_id) without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (create), resource (Action Plan), and outcome (returns created object on success with HTTP 201). It lists required parameters and provides API endpoint details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_an_action_plan_from_a_plan_template' or 'bulk_create_action_plans_for_locations', missing a chance to distinguish usage.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk creation, from template). No exclusionary language or context about prerequisites or scenarios is provided.

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