Create Project File Version

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a version (upload), returns HTTP 201 on success, and mentions the endpoint. It also transparently notes the deprecation of the 'data' parameter and recommends 'upload_uuid'. Annotations are minimal but consistent. No contradictions found.

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 moderately concise but contains repetitive elements (e.g., 'Creates a new Documents' and 'Use this to create a new Documents'). It front-loads the purpose but includes extraneous details like the support link and API endpoint. Could be more streamlined.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately mentions the success response (HTTP 201). However, it does not cover error scenarios, possible side effects, or confirm that it creates a version (not a new file). The complexity of 6 parameters and deprecation notes are partially addressed but not fully complete.

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 covers all 6 parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description redundantly lists required parameters and adds a link to support documentation but does not provide new semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Upload a new version of a specific file') and the context ('Project Documents tool'). It identifies the resource and provides the endpoint. However, the phrase 'Use this to create a new Documents in Procore' is slightly misleading (it creates a version, not a new document) and does not fully distinguish it from similar tools like create_project_file.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when not to use it or compare it with siblings like create_project_file or create_company_file_version. The only usage hint is the required parameters, which is already in the schema.

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