Create Action Plan Template Approver

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the request payload nests fields under 'plan_template_approver', that calling again creates another record (matching idempotentHint=false), that the response returns the new id with HTTP 201, and that failures carry HTTP statuses (401/403/404). This is rich behavioral context not present in 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 moderately sized but front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence serves a purpose: creation semantics, payload nesting, default behavior, non-idempotency, error codes, required params, and endpoint. It is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it creates, return value, default project_id, non-idempotency, common error statuses, required parameters, and API endpoint. It adequately prepares an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention the exact structure of the created record beyond the id.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that fields are top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload. This clarifies the calling convention for all three parameters.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Creates an Action Plan Template Approver for a given Project Action Plan Template.' It clearly distinguishes this single-create operation from sibling tools like list/show/delete by emphasizing creation and the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record').

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 clear context for use: creating a single approver for a template, with instructions on how to pass fields ('Pass the record's fields as top-level arguments') and the project_id default via procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over listing or bulk creation tools.

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