Create Attachment

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), describes the success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and details common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). This is valuable and does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Every sentence in the description provides useful information: purpose, defaults, prerequisites, behavior, errors, required params, and API reference. No filler or redundancy—appropriately sized for a mutation tool.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return value (new id, HTTP 201) and error behavior. It also includes endpoint and API context, making it complete for an agent to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and that list_id must identify an existing parent record and be resolved with the list tool. This enriches the semantic understanding of the parameters.

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's function: 'Creates an attachment for the specified Checklist (Inspection).' It specifies the verb (creates), the resource (attachment), the target (Checklist/Inspection), and even provides the exact endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools for other modules.

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 context for when to use: 'list_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first' gives a prerequisite and points to a list tool. It also explains the project_id default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools for creating attachments in other contexts, so it's not a full 5.

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