Create Checklist Schedule Attachment

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

Beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent), the description adds concrete behavioral details: calling it again creates another record, HTTP 201 return with the new id, project_id defaulting, and common failure statuses (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This significantly enriches what the agent knows about the tool's behavior.

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 moderately long but each sentence carries important information: purpose, defaulting, prerequisite resolution, non-idempotence, error taxonomy, required parameters, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff, though it is a bit dense and could be slightly tightened.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value (new id, HTTP 201) and failure modes. It also covers preconditions and the defaulting rule. For a simple 3-parameter create operation, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that schedule_id must be an existing parent record—neither of which is in the schema. The attachment parameter's multipart/form-data requirement is already covered by the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 'Uploads an Attachment to the specified Checklist Schedule,' which uses a specific verb and resource that exactly matches the tool name. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_checklist_schedule_attachments and delete_checklist_schedule_attachment, and reinforces the purpose by stating 'Creates the checklist schedule attachment and returns it with its new id.'

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 provides explicit guidance to resolve schedule_id via 'the matching list tool first,' and notes that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted. This is useful contextual guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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