Create Attachments

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it warns that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent), describes the HTTP 201 response with the new id, and enumerates common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is genuinely useful 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: action, defaults, prerequisite, result, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers necessary operational details without redundancy.

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 schema covers all parameters and the annotations declare readOnly/idempotence/destructive properties, the description completes the picture with return behavior, failure modes, defaults, and the prerequisite. This is sufficient for an agent to 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value by explaining that company_id/project_id can be omitted when config is set and that asset_id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'URL path parameter' descriptions.

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 a specific action and target: 'Creates attachments for a given asset.' It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the asset scope and providing the exact endpoint with asset_id in the path.

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?

It clearly states that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and instructs users to resolve asset_id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative attachment-creation tools, but the prerequisite and defaults give solid usage context.

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