Create Company Action Plan Template Section

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

Annotations already convey the core mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent). The description adds valuable context: company_id defaulting via procore_set_config, HTTP 201 success with new id, duplicate creation on repeat calls, and common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-organized with clear sections: purpose, field-payload mapping, default, response, errors, required parameters, and API reference. It is dense but not bloated. Minor redundancy exists ('Creates...Creates the company action plan template section') which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers return behavior (new id + HTTP 201), error handling, defaults, required parameters, and endpoint. It does not need to explain return values in detail since there is no output schema. The only slight gap is not addressing why openWorldHint is true relative to additionalProperties:false, which is more of an annotation/schema mismatch than a description shortfall.

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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining that fields are nested under 'plan_template_section' in the payload and by revealing the company_id default behavior, which is not in the schema. This adds practical meaning for invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('Company Action Plan Template Section') with a clear parent scope ('for a given Company Action Plan Template'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list, copy, and recycle actions by explicitly framing a creation operation tied to a template.

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 when to use the tool (to add a new section to a specific template) and notes non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as the copy-section tool or list/recycle counterparts, and no exclusions are stated.

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