Create Attachment

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds only the HTTP 201 success response. It does not disclose idempotency, file type/size limits, or side effects. The inaccuracy about creating inspections further detracts.

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?

Description is relatively concise but includes redundant and inaccurate content ('creates a new Inspections'). Front-loads the flawed purpose; could be more efficient.

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 simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), the description provides the basics but omits details like file format constraints, maximum size, or authentication scope. The deprecation note is partial due to schema truncation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal value. It restates required parameters and notes the attachment field deprecation, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic enrichment.

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 is internally inconsistent: it states 'Creates an attachment for the specified Checklist (Inspection)' but then says 'Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore,' which conflates attachments with inspections. This confusion undermines clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like bulk_create_checklist_inspections_item_attachments. The description offers no context on prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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