Adds Attachments To A Material Resource.

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), response contents (file_id, upload URL, new id), and failure modes (401/403/404 error payloads). This goes well beyond the structured 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 dense but information-rich, with key behavior first, then parameter details, then error handling and API reference. It could be trimmed (e.g., the endpoint line is somewhat redundant given the description), but every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the response (file_id, upload URL, new id) and error payloads. It covers prerequisites and defaults. However, the phantom file_id parameter and the contradiction about required vs defaulting parameters create gaps that prevent the description from being fully complete for an agent.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, but the description introduces a file_id parameter that does not appear in the schema (and additionalProperties is false), creating confusion. It also states company_id and project_id 'default' when omitted, yet the schema marks them as required. These contradictions undermine clear parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Creates the attachment and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)' and specifies the target resource ('material resource'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact resource type and endpoint (POST /rest/v2.0/.../materials/{id}/attachments).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on the optional file_id parameter (provide one from FAS or omit to have FAS create a record) and instructs resolving the parent id with a list tool first. It also notes defaults for company_id and project_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly exclude other attachment tools or state 'use this when attaching to a material', though the resource name makes this clear.

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