Create Action Plan Approver Signature

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

Annotations provide no read-only or idempotent hints; description adds that only one of attachment or attachment_string may be passed and that success returns HTTP 201. This gives some behavioral insight but doesn't cover rate limits, idempotency, or side effects beyond what's obvious.

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 repetitive and contains contradictory information (creating a signature vs. creating an action plan). The unnecessary duplication of 'Create a single Action Plan Approver Signature' and the misleading action plan text bloat the description and reduce clarity.

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?

Provides essential fields and endpoint, but does not explain error responses, prerequisites (e.g., plan_approver must exist), or the meaning of the signature. The confusion about creating action plans undermines completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds the endpoint path and notes that attachment requires multipart/form-data, which is not in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand how to form the request correctly.

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 opening sentence clearly states 'Create a single Action Plan Approver Signature,' but subsequent text incorrectly says 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore' and 'Creates a new Action Plans,' which confuses the tool's actual purpose of creating a signature, not an action 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_action_plan or create_action_plan_item_assignee_signature. The only constraint mentioned is the mutual exclusivity of attachment fields, but it lacks context about when creating a signature is appropriate.

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