Create Company File Version

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds significant behavioral context: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, calling it again creates another record (non-idempotent), and it discloses common error payloads (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the bare annotations, which only list readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The explicit statement of creating a duplicate on repeated calls aligns with idempotentHint=false, with no contradictions.

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 sized and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses three sentences plus a final line for API reference, with each sentence contributing meaningful information: main purpose, support link, default/return/error behavior, and required parameters. The support link is arguably extraneous for an agent, but the overall structure is clear and efficient, not verbose.

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 correctly explains the return value (new id with HTTP 201) and error payloads. It covers the default company_id behavior and required parameters. However, it does not describe the expected structure or content of file_version (e.g., how to specify the file data or reference), which is left entirely open in the schema. For a creation tool, this is a minor gap but not fatal.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by noting that company_id can be omitted due to the procore_set_config default, which is not captured in the schema. It also reinforces the role of file_id as referencing a specific existing file, but does not elaborate on the file_version object structure beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource: 'Uploads a new version of a specific file in the Company Documents tool.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_company_file (which creates a file, not a version) and create_project_file_version (which is project-scoped). The distinction is further reinforced by the explicit mention of 'Company Documents' and the 'specific file' requirement.

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 use case: you need an existing file_id to upload a new version, and it specifies the company scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like create_company_file for initial file creation. The support link provides background but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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