Move Action Plan Into "In Progress"

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), but the description discloses key behavioral traits: it changes the plan status, restricts subsequent updates, and returns the updated plan. It also details likely HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction 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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds information: state change, post-state restrictions, defaults, id resolution, return value, error handling, and API endpoint. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be trimmed slightly, but no waste.

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 description covers the return value, likely error scenarios, the endpoint, and parameter prerequisites. It lacks an explicit precondition that the plan must currently be in 'draft' before moving to 'in_progress', which would be a useful addition. Overall, it is solid for a state-transition tool.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra meaning: project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This clarifies how to obtain and use the parameters beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Move Action Plan into "In Progress"' and explicitly says it sets the status to 'in_progress'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_action_plan_back_into_draft by specifying the target state.

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: it explains the state transition and notes that once in this state, only specific updates are allowed. It also gives practical guidance on resolving the id via a list tool first and mentions the default for project_id. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like move_action_plan_back_into_draft, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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