Create Action Plan Template Receiver

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

The description explicitly states non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), the successful return format ('returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)'), and common failure modes (401, 403, 404 with context). This goes well beyond annotations, which only hint at write behavior and non-idempotency. No contradiction with 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?

Each sentence provides distinct useful information: the core action, payload handling, default behavior, non-idempotency, error handling, required params, and API reference. The description is information-dense without fluff and is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple 3-parameter creation endpoint, the description covers all necessary context: required parameters, return value, errors, payload nesting, default behavior, and API location. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently explains what to expect. The tool is small enough that nothing important is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds valuable semantics: clarifies that party_id and plan_template_id are body fields nested under 'plan_template_receiver' and that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema 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 clearly states the action: 'Creates an Action Plan Template Receiver for a given Project Action Plan Template.' It specifies the exact resource and context, and the endpoint further clarifies scope. It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_create or approver tools by focusing on singular receiver 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?

Provides practical usage guidance: tells users to pass fields as top-level arguments, explains the project_id default from procore_set_config, and lists required parameters. It also warns that repeated calls create new records. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like bulk_create_action_plan_template_receivers, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this tool over siblings.

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