Bulk Update Document Uploads

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by stating it returns the modified document upload and detailing how failures surface, including common HTTP status codes like 401, 403, and 404.

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 single dense paragraph that packs in purpose, usage guidance, failure modes, and the API endpoint without excessive wordiness. Its structure is acceptable, though it could benefit from splitting the contradictory required/defaulted note into a clearer format.

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 tool's complexity, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the return value, error payloads, parameter defaults, and endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what happens on success and failure, despite the parameter contradiction.

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 description adds defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, which is not in the schema, but it contradicts the schema by also labeling them as required. The update_params field remains vague in both schema and description, and the internal inconsistency about required vs. defaulted parameters could mislead an agent.

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 it updates an existing document upload in a specified Procore project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from single-record updates by explicitly recommending its use for bulk operations.

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?

It explicitly recommends using this tool over repeated single-record calls when handling many document uploads, providing clear context for when it is appropriate. It also explains default behavior for company_id and project_id from procore_set_config, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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