Bulk Create Document Uploads

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), the description reveals important behavioral traits: defaults for company_id/project_id when omitted, partial-failure semantics ('individual entries can fail independently'), and specific HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This materially helps the agent anticipate failure modes and response handling, exceeding what annotations alone convey.

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 6 sentences and packs substantial information (purpose, usage, defaults, partial failure, error codes, API endpoint) without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds supporting detail. The only slight redundancy is listing required parameters that already appear in the schema, but this is a minor detraction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the return value ('array of upload metadata', 'resulting collection') and explicitly addressing partial failures and error payloads. It covers defaulting behavior, required parameters, and the API endpoint. For a bulk creation tool with no output schema, this is comprehensive and sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 meaningful value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies that uploads is a list of records processed in one request. The required-parameters list is redundant with the schema, but the additional default and batch behavior semantics justify a 4.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Creates new Document Uploads and returns an array of upload metadata.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the bulk aspect and explicitly contrasting with repeated single-record calls. The tool name, title, and description align without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many document uploads at once.' It provides clear context for high-volume scenarios, though it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it. It also notes default parameter behavior from procore_set_config, adding useful selection context.

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