Create Action Plan Approver Signature

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it affirms non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), discloses error patterns ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'), and explains the payload nesting ('fields are nested under "signature"'). It also notes the mutual exclusivity of attachment and attachment_string, providing context not present in the 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then delivers high-value details (mutual exclusivity, defaulting, resolution requirement, error behavior, endpoint). It is somewhat repetitive—the required parameters list mirrors the schema, and the creation statement is restated—but each sentence contributes useful information. It is longer than strictly necessary but not bloated.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect: 'returns it with its new id (HTTP 201).' It also covers common failure modes, prerequisites for parameters, and the API endpoint and category. This fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema: it explicitly states that 'only one of attachment or attachment_string may be passed,' clarifies that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' and instructs that plan_approver_id must be resolved via a list tool. These constraints are not obvious from the schema alone, boosting the score above baseline.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Create a single Action Plan Approver Signature.' It further distinguishes the operation by stating it 'returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)' and clarifies that 'calling it again creates another record,' which sets it apart from read-only or idempotent siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'plan_approver_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also clarifies when to use this over alternatives by noting the non-idempotent nature ('calling it again creates another record') and the defaulting behavior for project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative create/signature tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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