Create Action Plan Item Assignee Signature

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the mutual exclusivity constraint and HTTP 201 success response. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error handling (e.g., what happens if both fields are provided). Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), so the description adds moderate value.

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 a single paragraph with essential info but includes redundant or incorrect details (e.g., 'Procore API: Project Management > Action Plans', the repeated line about creating Action Plans). It could be more concise and focused without the confusing copy-paste error.

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?

Given the well-defined schema and lack of output schema, the description partially fills gaps by mentioning the mutual exclusivity constraint and return status. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools and contains a misleading line about 'Action Plans', leaving the overall context somewhat incomplete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description introduces a mutual exclusivity constraint that contradicts the schema's requirement for both parameters. This inconsistency undermines the parameter semantics. The description provides some added meaning (only one allowed), but the contradiction reduces reliability.

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 'Create a single Action Plan Item Assignee Signature', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_action_plan_approver_signature. However, it contains a confusing line 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore' that seems like a copy-paste error, slightly reducing clarity.

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 key usage constraint: 'only one of `attachment` or `attachment_string` may be passed'. It lists required parameters but does not differentiate from alternative signature creation tools or specify when to use this tool over others. The misleading mention of 'Action Plans' also detracts from clear guidance.

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