Create BIM Geometry File Bundle (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the deprecation date and removal schedule, the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), and common failure statuses (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not provide, and nothing contradicts the 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, well-front-loaded paragraph: it states the core purpose first, then deprecation, behavior, errors, and required parameters. It is somewhat dense and includes endpoint/category details that could be considered redundant, but each sentence contributes actionable information and it is not excessively long.

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 the key outcome (returns new id, HTTP 201) and error handling. It also provides deprecation guidance and required parameters. However, it does not describe the structure or expected fields of the nested bim_geometry_file_bundle object, leaving some ambiguity for an agent building the request body.

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 only repeats the required parameter names (project_id, bim_geometry_file_bundle) without adding semantic detail about how to build the bim_geometry_file_bundle object or when to use the view enum. The schema descriptions already cover the parameter meanings, so the description adds little beyond the structured data.

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 verb+resource+scope statement: 'Create a BIM Geometry File Bundle in a Project.' It further clarifies the action by noting it returns the record with a new id (HTTP 201) and provides the exact endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like show_bim_geometry_file_bundle or delete_bim_file.

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 deprecation notice explicitly tells the agent to prefer a newer version of the resource and directs it to use procore_search_endpoints to find that alternative. It also warns that calling again creates another record, signaling non-idempotent usage and telling the agent not to call it multiple times for the same logical creation.

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