Create Unified Company Upload

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

Description discloses non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), which aligns with idempotentHint=false but adds detail. It reveals HTTP 201 response, signed URLs in segments, and failure modes (401/403/404) beyond annotations. Also notes company_id defaulting behavior from procore_set_config, and the PATCH completion step, providing rich behavioral context.

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 a single dense paragraph but is logically organized: purpose, behavior, errors, required params, API reference. Each sentence adds value; no filler. It's longer than the minimal but appropriate for the complexity of multi-part uploads.

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?

Description covers the full workflow: creation, signed URLs, PATCH completion, non-idempotency, error statuses, and required parameters. It even names the API version and endpoint. Despite no output schema, it explains return payload (segments array, new id), so the agent has enough context to invoke and handle the response.

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; description adds extra semantics by listing required params explicitly and clarifying segment size rules (100 MB single segment, 10000 segments max) already in schema. It also adds the important default for company_id when omitted, which is not in the schema. This elevates the description's value beyond the structured fields.

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 'Creates a company-level file upload (no project scope)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from project-level create by noting 'same request and response shape as project-level create' and explicitly says no project scope. This differentiates it from sibling upload tools like create_project_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?

Description explains when this tool is appropriate: company-level uploads, and mentions it works for both standard and segmented uploads. It references 'project-level create' as an alternative context but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions (e.g., use project-level for project scope). The mention of completing the flow with PATCH gives usage context for the multi-step upload process.

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