Create Action Plan Test Record

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and has open-world hint. The description adds behavioral context by stating it creates a record and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). It also explains payload format constraints, which provides useful transparency beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or error behavior, making it adequate but not outstanding.

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 verbose and contains redundancies, such as repeating 'Action Plan Test Record' and ending with a truncated example ('*For instance, Checklist Test Records can only leverage che...'). It could be more concise and structured, especially by separating the payload format details from the general creation statement. The truncation is a notable flaw that detracts from usability.

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 tool with 5 required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, required params, payload format constraints, and the API endpoint. However, it lacks details about the return object's structure (since no output schema), error handling, or authentication requirements. The truncated example also leaves some ambiguity, making it merely adequate for an AI agent.

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 already documents all 5 required parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the 'type' enum ('checklist', 'attachment', 'photo') must correspond to specific payload formats, and it lists the possible fields inside the 'payload' object. This extra semantic guidance helps the agent construct valid requests, going beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 begins by stating 'Create an Action Plan Test Record', which aligns with the tool's name and title. However, it later says 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore. Creates a new Action Plans', introducing inconsistency by referring to 'Action Plans' instead of 'Action Plan Test Record'. Despite this confusion, the overall purpose is clear enough for an AI agent to understand it creates a test 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it or any alternatives. It only says 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore', which is too vague. Given the large number of sibling tools, this lack of comparative context makes it hard for an agent to select the correct tool.

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