Create Action Plan Section

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only or destructive. The description adds that on success HTTP 201 is returned and the created object is returned. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., triggering notifications). Since annotations already convey basic safety, the description adds modest 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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It includes useful details like view parameter options and required fields. The trailing 'Procore API...' line is somewhat redundant but not egregious. Could be slightly tighter, but overall well-structured.

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 moderate complexity and good schema coverage, the description provides a solid overview: it explains the purpose, optional vs required parameters, and the success response. No output schema exists, but the view parameter gives some insight into response structure. Missing details like error conditions or field constraints, but adequate for a creation tool.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description reinforces the view enum and lists required parameters but does not add significant new meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Creates an Action Plan Section') and the target resource ('for a given Action Plan'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_action_plan, create_action_plan_item, and copy section tools by focusing on section creation.

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 lists required parameters (project_id, plan_id, title) and mentions the view parameter options. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., bulk creation, copy methods). No 'when not to use' or comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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