Create Maintenance Log Attachment.

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds that it returns the created object on success and provides the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects, so the description adds moderate 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 is somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'create a new Field Productivity records' appears twice) and could be more concise by removing duplicates. It is front-loaded with the action but includes some redundant phrasing.

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?

The description explains the return value (created object) and endpoint, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, or the meaning of optional parameters. Given the complexity and absence of output schema, the description is minimally adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It reiterates that company_id and id are required, which is already clear from the schema. No additional parameter guidance is provided.

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 the tool creates a new maintenance log attachment and mentions the HTTP 201 response, which distinguishes it from other creation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling attachment tools like 'create_attachment_project' or 'create_equipment_attachment_company'.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Field Productivity records in Procore' and specifies required parameters, but it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or any alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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