Create Project Upload

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. It discloses the full behavior: the response contains a UUID, URL, and fields; the URL/fields may vary and must not be hard-coded; the upload requires a specific POST format; calling it again creates a new record; and it lists common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is exemplary transparency.

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 well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then logically walking through the upload process, response properties, error handling, and endpoint. Some sentences are slightly redundant (e.g., explaining the upload URL twice), but every sentence contributes value. It earns a 4, not a 5, due to its length and minor repetition.

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 complexity of a two-step upload process with dynamic URLs/fields and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the return payload, the required POST body, the non-idempotency, the default for project_id, common failure modes, and the underlying API endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and follow through the upload.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context above the schema: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, response_filename is required and influences the saved filename, and the multipart/form-data fields must include all response fields plus _file_. This helps the agent understand how parameters plug into the overall workflow.

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 purpose: 'Creating an Upload is the first step in associating a file to a resource in Procore.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (project upload), and its role in a larger workflow. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling upload-related tools like create_unified_upload, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: it is the first step to associate a file to a resource, and it explains the subsequent steps (POST to the given URL with multipart/form-data). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is unambiguous.

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