Create An Action Plan From A Plan Template.

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by detailing what gets created (sections, items, assignees, references, test record requests) and that it returns HTTP 201 on success. This supplements the annotations well, though it could mention idempotency or side effects more explicitly.

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 efficient, front-loading the main purpose and then listing sub-entities, usage instruction, HTTP status, and API details. Slight redundancy ('Use this to...' after first sentence), but overall it earns its place.

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 complex creation tool with no output schema, the description explains what gets created, the HTTP response, and endpoint. It lacks mention of error cases or idempotency, but annotations fill the gap. Sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effect.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description redundantly lists required parameters and shows the endpoint with project_id in the path. It adds no meaningful new semantics beyond the schema, so 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 tool creates an Action Plan from a template and enumerates associated entities (sections, items, assignees, etc.). It differentiates from siblings by specifying the 'from template' behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with similar create tools like 'create_action_plan'.

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' and lists required parameters. However, it offers no guidance on when NOT to use it or which alternative tool to choose (e.g., 'create_action_plan' for non-template creation).

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