Create Equipment Attachment (Project)

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which matches the write operation. The description adds that the tool returns the created object on HTTP 201 success, but lacks details on error responses, required permissions, or rate limits. With annotations covering the basic behavior, the description provides minimal added value.

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 consists of three sentences that concisely state the purpose, method (HTTP 201), and required parameters. The inclusion of the endpoint is slightly redundant but not harmful. It is reasonably efficient without extra fluff.

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?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic creation behavior and success response. However, it does not describe the return object structure, error handling, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already explained. The description merely lists the required parameters without adding semantic meaning, such as the allowed values for 'type' or how parameters interact. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool creates an equipment attachment in Procore, using the name and title to reinforce the 'attachment' aspect. However, the phrase 'create a new Equipment records' is slightly ambiguous as it might suggest creating equipment rather than an attachment. The endpoint path clarifies project-level context, distinguishing it from company-level siblings.

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 usage for creating equipment attachments within a project via the endpoint and title, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_equipment_attachment_company'. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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