Create Company Action Plan Template Reference

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the creation behavior described. The description mentions it creates and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or constraints beyond the creation itself.

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 relatively concise (three sentences plus endpoint info), but it repeats the title phrase and includes minor redundancy. Every sentence has some value, but the structure could be tighter.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only states it returns the created object without detailing its structure. Given the tool's complexity (4 required params, one being an object with additionalProperties), the description is adequate but lacks return value specifics.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value by noting that for attachment uploads, the entire payload must be sent as multipart/form-data, which is a crucial usage detail not evident from the schema alone.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Company Action Plan Template Reference'. It indicates the tool creates a new reference in Procore, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project_action_plan_template_reference' or 'bulk_create_company_action_plan_template_references', and it inaccurately says 'create new Action Plans' instead of 'Template References'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk creation or project-level variants). The description only states 'Use this to create a new Action Plans in Procore,' which is vague and lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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