Create Action Plan Item Assignee

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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false and idempotent=false, so the description adds significant value beyond those. It details error payloads (401/403/404), the default project_id behavior, the nesting of fields, and the crucial nuance that party_id and role are conditionally required (at least one). This goes well beyond the structured 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 relatively long but every clause is informative: activity definition, OR-logic note, nesting explanation, default configuration, non-idempotency, error codes, required params, API category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the clear action statement and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return status (HTTP 201, new id), common failure modes, required parameters, and the exact endpoint. It could elaborate on the response body structure, but for a create operation, knowing that the new id is returned is sufficient for an agent to confirm success.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical semantic clarification about the party_id/role OR-requirement and explains that body fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload. These details help prevent misuse beyond what parameter descriptions alone provide.

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 'Create an Action Plan Item Assignee,' a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this create operation from other action plan tools. It further differentiates by mentioning the HTTP 201 response with a new id and warning that calling it again creates another record, which sets it apart from update or bulk-create variants.

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 clear context by listing required parameters and noting the project_id default from procore_set_config. It implicitly frames this as the create operation among CRUD siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_action_plan_item_assignee or bulk_create_action_plan_item_assignees. The non-idempotency warning serves as practical usage guidance.

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