Create Company File Version

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safe write nature is clear. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) and lists required parameters, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits. No contradiction with 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 somewhat verbose with redundant phrases like 'Use this to create a new Documents in Procore' and 'Creates a new Documents and returns...'. It includes a support link and endpoint info, which are useful but could be more streamlined. Every sentence earns its place, but there is room for trimming.

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 complexity of a 3-parameter create operation with a nested object and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action, resource type (file version), and expected return. It mentions the HTTP 201 status and the endpoint, providing enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description merely lists the required parameters (company_id, file_id, file_version) without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool name 'create_company_file_version' clearly indicates its purpose, and the description explicitly states 'Uploads a new version of a specific file in the Company Documents tool.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_company_file' (which creates a new file). The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to upload a new version of a file) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on choosing between this and related tools like 'create_company_file' or 'update_company_file'. The context is clear but lacking exclusions.

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