Create Attachment

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 on success and requires multipart/form-data (already in schema), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error conditions or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Fairly concise with four sentences, but the second sentence is confusing (mixes 'Incidents' with attachment). Front-loads purpose well, but the confusion detracts from efficiency.

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 simple attachment creation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers basic purpose, required params, endpoint, and return status. However, it lacks explanation of error scenarios or validation, and the confusing Incidents reference creates a completeness gap.

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 the description's mention of required parameters adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states it creates an attachment for a specific Action, which is clear, but then confusingly says 'Use this to create a new Incidents in Procore' and 'Creates a new Incidents', which contradicts the attachment purpose and could mislead an AI agent. This reduces 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling attachment creation tools (e.g., other create_attachment_project versions). No mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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