Adds Attachments To A Receipt Resource.

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'calling it again creates another record.' It adds valuable behavior: FAS creates a new file record when file_id is omitted, returns an upload URL, and error cases (401/403/404) are disclosed. This goes beyond the annotations but could be richer on authorization requirements.

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 a dense single paragraph covering key behavior, parameters, defaults, error handling, and endpoint information. Every sentence adds value, though it could be better structured with line breaks or bullets for improved scannability. It is not excessively verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully explains return values (file_id, upload URL, new id with HTTP 201), error codes, prerequisites, and defaults. It provides a complete picture for an agent to call this tool correctly, including the endpoint path.

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 three parameters with basic descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved from a list tool. This enhances the schema's minimal field definitions.

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 this tool creates an attachment on a receipt resource, with a specific verb ('Creates the attachment') and resource ('receipt resource'). It also differentiates from sibling attachment tools by scoping to receipts and mentioning the File Access Service (FAS) integration, making it specific to this endpoint.

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 guidance: 'Either provide a file_id already obtained from the File Access Service (FAS), or omit it to have FAS create a new file record.' It also instructs to resolve the parent id with the matching list tool first, and notes defaults for company_id/project_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling attachment tools for when to use this specific one.

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