Create Company Upload

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the multi-step process: the tool returns instructions (UUID, URL, fields) that must be followed with a multipart/form-data POST. It also mentions the HTTP 201 response on success. Annotations have readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the create operation, and 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 front-loaded with the purpose and provides necessary technical details. However, there is some redundancy (e.g., 'Creating an Upload' appears twice) and it could be slightly more concise.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully explains what the response contains (UUID, URL, fields) and the expected HTTP status (201). It also includes the endpoint path and method, making it complete for the agent.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra context, like explaining that response_filename ensures the storage service knows the filename, but this adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 clearly states that creating an upload is the first step to associate a file with a Procore resource. It specifies the tool returns a UUID, URL, and fields for subsequent file upload. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_project_upload', though the company context is implied.

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 explains the tool's purpose and provides endpoint details and required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit through the company-level focus.

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