Create Company Action Plan Template Item

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: company_id defaults to the config value, field nesting is handled automatically, the operation is non-idempotent (explicitly noting repeated calls create another record), and failure modes include common HTTP status codes. This adds significant context to the write operation and matches the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false).

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 dense with useful information, including purpose, payload handling, default behavior, return value, and error handling. It is longer than the minimum but each sentence serves a purpose; no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers the return value (new id with HTTP 201), non-idempotency, and error response format. It also includes the API category and endpoint for further reference. For a create tool with 5 parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that fields should be passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload, and that company_id has a default from procore_set_config. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which are generic body-field explanations.

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 a new company action plan template item') and the target resource ('for the specified Procore company'). It lists the required parameters, making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create_company_action_plan_templates, create_company_action_plan_template_section) by specifying the item-level resource.

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 implies usage (when you need to add an item to a company action plan template), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it relies on the user to infer context from the purpose.

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