Create Checklist Schedule Attachment

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

The description states that a successful call returns HTTP 201 and the created object, which is useful. However, it includes the misleading statement about creating inspections, which contradicts the actual behavior (attaching to a schedule, not creating inspections). Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no information about authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The internal inconsistency lowers the score.

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 few sentences, but it is not tightly focused. It repeats itself (e.g., 'Creates a new Inspections' multiple times) and includes unnecessary detail like the full endpoint path. The confusing inspection part adds noise, making it less concise than it could be.

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 tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description mentions a return (created object with HTTP 201) but does not detail the response structure. Given the lack of output schema, the description should compensate by describing typical response fields or examples. It also fails to mention that the attachment parameter requires multipart/form-data encoding, though the schema does. Overall, the description leaves gaps for an agent to understand the full invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., URL path parameters, multipart form-data for attachment). The description repeats the required parameters but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate as schema provides adequate detail.

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 begins with 'Uploads an Attachment to the specified Checklist Schedule', which clearly states the main action. However, it then confusingly says 'Use this to create a new Inspections in Procore' and 'Creates a new Inspections', which contradicts the first sentence and suggests a different tool (likely create_checklist_inspection). This ambiguity 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?

The description implies the tool is used to attach files to a checklist schedule, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_checklist_schedule_attachments or delete_checklist_schedule_attachment. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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