Create Project Upload

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

The description clearly indicates that this tool does not upload the file itself but provides instructions for doing so. It discloses the behavioral trait that it is a preparatory step, which is beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) provide. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly comprehensive but contains some redundancy, such as 'Creating an Upload is the first step' and 'Creating an Upload can be seen as fetching instruction' conveying similar ideas. It is well-structured with endpoint info but could be 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the response format (instructions with UUID, URL, fields) and covers the purpose, process, required parameters, and API version. It does not discuss errors or authentication, but that is common for such tools.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by explaining that the tool returns instructions with properties like UUID and URL, and mentions required parameters (project_id, response_filename). However, it does not significantly elaborate on parameter meaning beyond 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 in associating a file to a resource in Procore, explaining the purpose of obtaining upload instructions. It mentions the endpoint and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling upload tools like 'company_upload' or 'drawing_upload'.

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 process of obtaining upload instructions and that a subsequent POST request is needed to upload the file. It does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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