Create Company Action Plan Templates

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

Annotations already indicate a non-idempotent write operation, but the description adds substantial context: payload fields are nested under 'plan_template', company_id defaults from procore_set_config, success returns id with HTTP 201, and failures include status codes 401, 403, and 404 with meanings. This goes well beyond the 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each sentence carries useful information. It is longer than the minimal but not verbose; details on payload nesting, defaults, non-idempotency, and error handling are all relevant. A slight trim of the trailing API path could improve conciseness.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the return value (new id, HTTP 201), error behavior with common status codes, parameter defaults, required fields, and the API endpoint. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool with confidence.

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 value by clarifying that top-level arguments are nested under 'plan_template' in the payload (crucial for correct invocation) and by explaining the company_id default behavior. It also explicitly calls out the three required parameters.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Creates a new company action plan template for the specified Procore company.' It distinguishes this creation tool from sibling list/show/update/delete tools and explicitly states the HTTP 201 return with a new id.

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 provides clear context: required parameters are listed, company_id default behavior is explained, and the non-idempotent nature ('calling it again creates another record') is stated. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer an alternative tool (e.g., update or show) or when not to use this tool.

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