Create Attachment

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), error conditions with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), default project_id behavior, and the two upload modes (multipart vs. upload ID). Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds concrete operational context.

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 a dense, information-rich paragraph with no filler. Every sentence contributes (purpose, upload modes, defaults, error handling, required params, endpoint). It could be slightly tightened, but it remains well-structured 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 no output schema, the description covers return behavior ('returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)'), common failure modes, required parameters, and the endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, including prerequisite resolution of action_id.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: project_id can default to procore_set_config, attachment can be a previously uploaded file referenced by upload ID, and action_id must resolve to an existing parent record. These details help the agent use the parameters correctly without relying solely on schema field names.

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 purpose: 'Uploads a file attachment to the specified incident action.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'incident action' distinguishes it from other attachment tools in the sibling list (e.g., create_attachment_project_v1_0_4, create_attachments_project).

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'action_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first' and 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is unambiguous and actionable.

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