Create Company Action Plan Template Reference

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), return behavior (HTTP 201 with new id), default for company_id, payload wrapping details, and common failure status codes (401/403/404). This goes well beyond the provided annotations, making the tool's runtime behavior transparent.

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 a single paragraph but every sentence earns its place: purpose, payload wrapping, default, idempotency behavior, error handling, required params, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and then packs in necessary details without fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description supplies essential return information (new id, HTTP 201) and error semantics. It covers the endpoint, API section, required parameters, and the default for company_id, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the configured value when omitted and that top-level arguments are automatically nested under 'plan_template_reference', which helps correct invocation without extra interpretation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new company action plan template reference for the specified Procore company.' This clearly distinguishes it from list/show/delete and project-scoped siblings, and it adds the behavioral nuance that calling it again creates another 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 clearly implies use for creating a single company-level action plan template reference, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_create_plan_template_references or project-level create. The context is unambiguous, but it lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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