Complete Company Upload

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the ETag ordering requirement, partial progress handling with null segments, the response containing upload_id and status, and common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error handling.

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 and information-packed, covering purpose, ETag formats, partial progress, response, defaults, prerequisites, errors, and endpoint in a structured flow. It is slightly verbose and redundantly lists required parameters (already in schema), but every sentence adds some value and it remains well-organized and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 complexity of segmented uploads and the absence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it explains return values (upload_id and status), error payloads with common codes, partial-progress semantics, and how to resolve the parent upload. It equips the agent to handle the tool correctly with minimal ambiguity.

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?

While the input schema has 100% basic descriptions, the description adds substantial meaning to each parameter: part_etags is thoroughly explained (one ETag per segment, same order as POST, null for partial), company_id defaulting to procore_set_config is documented, and upload_id's requirement to reference an existing record is stated. This goes well beyond the schema's placeholder-level 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Completes or updates progress for a company-level unified upload." This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like create_unified_company_upload, show_company_upload, and update_company_upload by focusing on the completion/progress-update action, further reinforced by the PATCH endpoint reference.

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 on prerequisites: "upload_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first" and explains the default behavior of company_id via procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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