Create Company Action Plan Template Test Record Request

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive creation operation. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 and the created object, which is consistent but not deeply informative. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences and includes key points: purpose, required parameters, and endpoint. It is efficient but has minor redundancy (repeats 'Create...' and 'Action Plans') and a plural inconsistency.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters including a nested 'payload' object with no defined structure, but the description does not explain what the payload should contain or the response format beyond returning an object. No output schema exists, so more detail on the response would be helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description only lists required parameters, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it creates a Company Action Plan Template Test Record Request and mentions the Procore API endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Company' and the target resource, though the phrase 'Action Plans' is a bit generic.

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' but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like bulk creation or other action plan tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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