Create Maintenance Log Attachment. (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent, non-read-only behavior. The description adds crucial context: it explains that calling again creates another record, details error response statuses (401, 403, 404), notes company_id defaulting behavior, and clarifies the top-level argument nesting. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 long but dense, with every sentence adding value: purpose, deprecation, parameter handling, defaults, prerequisites, behavior, error codes, and endpoint. It is not wastefully verbose, though it could be better structured for scannability. Still, it earns its length.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers return behavior (HTTP 201 with new id), error payload handling, deprecation status, required parameters, and endpoint reference. Given the complexity of six parameters and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are generic ('URL path parameter', 'JSON request body field'). The description adds real semantics: explains that record fields are nested under 'managed_equipment_maintenance_logs_attachment' but should be passed as top-level arguments, clarifies company_id defaults, and specifies that id must reference an existing parent record. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 action: 'Create a new maintenance log attachment.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create maintenance logs themselves or delete attachments. The deprecation notice further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it is deprecated, advises preferring a newer version, and directs the user to procore_search_endpoints to find it. It also states a prerequisite by saying 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.'

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