Update Attachment

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: PATCH semantics, field-level partial update behavior, defaults from procore_set_config, return of modified attachment, and common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). This far exceeds what annotations alone communicate.

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 dense and well-organized, front-loading the purpose, then covering fields, defaults, id resolution, return/error behavior, and endpoint. It repeats some schema-only information (required params), but each sentence generally contributes useful context.

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?

Covers many operational details (errors, defaults, resolution, return format), which is good for a mutation tool. However, it introduces an updatable field not present in the schema, leaving a crucial gap about what the actual request body should contain. This inconsistency prevents the description from being fully reliable.

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 description claims 'Updatable fields: attachment_type_id' and instructs to send only changed fields, but the input schema does not include attachment_type_id and has additionalProperties:false, so such a field cannot be sent. This is actively misleading. While schema coverage is 100%, the description introduces incorrect parameter semantics rather than adding value.

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 tool 'Updates a specific attachment' and identifies the resource hierarchy (company/project/asset/attachment) plus the exact PATCH endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_attachment_company, but the endpoint and required path parameters make the scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear usage context: partial update behavior, config-based defaults for company_id/project_id, and instruction to resolve asset_id and attachment_id with list tools first. Lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the guidance given is actionable.

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