Create Action Plan Receiver Signature

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

Annotations already mark it as non-readonly and non-idempotent, but the description adds critical behavior: 'calling it again creates another record' reiterates non-idempotence, and the error status breakdown (401/403/404) helps anticipate failures. It also exposes the request payload transformation and the HTTP 201 response.

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 dense with useful information but runs to four sentences plus API metadata. It's well-organized and front-loaded, though the 'Required parameters' list duplicates the schema and the endpoint line is only relevant for debugging.

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 mutable operation with no output schema, it covers the request shape, response (new id, HTTP 201), non-idempotence, the most common error statuses, and the parent-record prerequisite. This is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents all four parameters, but the description adds essential constraints: the mutual exclusivity of attachment vs attachment_string, the default for project_id, and the prerequisite that plan_receiver_id reference an existing record. These go well beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 a single Action Plan Receiver Signature', which clearly identifies the verb (create), the resource (Action Plan Receiver Signature), and the scope (single). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_action_plan_receiver_signature and create_action_plan_approver_signature by the resource type.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: only one of `attachment` or `attachment_string` may be passed, project_id falls back to procore_set_config, and plan_receiver_id must be resolved with the matching list tool first. This tells the agent when to use it and what prerequisites must be met. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative create-signature tools (e.g., for approvers), so I'm not giving it a 5.

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