Create Attachment

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context: non-idempotency (calling again creates another record), HTTP 201 with the new id, and common error codes (401, 403, 404). This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false) without contradiction.

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 information-dense and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding return behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. It repeats required parameters already in the schema, but the additional context justifies the length.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format (HTTP 201 with new id), non-idempotent behavior, default parameter behavior, error scenarios, and the exact endpoint. This is unusually complete, explicitly addressing what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting the default behavior of project_id based on procore_set_config and clarifying parameter roles via the endpoint (project_id is a path parameter). This goes beyond the schema's basic field 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 clearly states the tool creates a new attachment, specifies the context (time and material entry), and provides the exact endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling create_attachment tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (creating an attachment for a time_and_material entry) and explains that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough for an agent.

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