Create Attachments

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-idempotent), the description states it returns the new id with HTTP 201, that calling again creates another record, and enumerates common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also discloses the company_id defaulting behavior. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then covers defaults, preconditions, return behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description explains return values (new id, HTTP 201), error responses, parameter semantics, and API version. However, it does not explain how the actual attachment content is specified—there is no file/upload parameter in the schema or description—leaving a significant gap for an agent attempting to create an attachment.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters, but the tool description adds meaning beyond the schema: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and asset_id must be an existing parent record. This is useful, though the 'defaults when omitted' note conflicts with the schema's required listing for company_id, which could confuse agents.

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 opens with 'Creates attachments for a given asset,' a specific verb+resource statement, and further clarifies the scope via the endpoint (companies/{company_id}/assets/{asset_id}/attachments). It clearly distinguishes from list/delete tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the project-scoped create_attachments_project sibling.

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: asset_id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with a list tool first; company_id has a config default. It also warns that repeated calls create additional records. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over project-scoped alternatives or list/delete attachment tools.

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