Create Action Plan Template Receiver

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). The description adds that it returns the created object on HTTP 201 and includes the endpoint. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like duplication behavior if called multiple times with same parameters, nor does it mention authorization requirements beyond the endpoint. With low annotation coverage, behavioral details are somewhat lacking.

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 concise with a few sentences covering purpose, required parameters, success response, and API reference. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy (e.g., mentioning 'Action Plans' twice) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context: what it does, required inputs, success result, and endpoint. However, it lacks information on error handling, idempotency, or behavior when duplicate receivers exist. A more complete description would include these aspects.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description lists required parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., project_id, plan_template_id, party_id are already explained). Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 that it creates an Action Plan Template Receiver for a given Project Action Plan Template, using a specific verb and resource. However, it also says "Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore" which is slightly confusing as the tool creates receivers, not plans themselves. It distinguishes from bulk_create actions by not being bulk, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar single-create siblings like create_action_plan_template_approver.

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 says "Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore" but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_create_action_plan_template_receivers or other creation tools. There are no exclusions or context on prerequisites, making usage ambiguous.

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