Get Unified Upload URL

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing.' It adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: HMAC signature validation, defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, the prerequisite that upload_id must exist, and a detailed failure-mode list (401/403/404). This fully discloses the tool's runtime behavior and error semantics.

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 information-dense; every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then logically flows through usage, defaults, return behavior, error handling, and API reference. A slight trim of the endpoint path (already implied by the name) could tighten it, but it is not padded or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'Returns a single JSON object describing the unified upload URL' is necessary and present. It also covers error conditions, defaults, prerequisites, and parameter requirements. The return description is somewhat high-level, but for a straightforward GET with documented failure modes, this is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config, and upload_id must identify an existing parent record. It also explicitly lists all required parameters, reinforcing the schema without duplication. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Gets the upload URL for a file by ID with signature verification.' It clearly states the tool's function and even notes the signature-checking behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_unified_part_upload_url or get_unified_company_upload_url, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: 'Use this when you already know which unified upload URL you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving upload_id with the matching list tool first and notes default values from procore_set_config. It does not name alternative tools for comparison, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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