Upload Schedule File (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses PATCH semantics (only changed fields are sent, omitted fields keep values), success behavior (returns modified schedule file), and common failure statuses (401/403/404). It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful 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 overly long and redundant: deprecation is stated multiple times, a large markdown table is included, and the PUT/PATCH instructions are scattered. While some key information is front-loaded, the overall structure is bloated and would benefit from tighter editing.

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 only two well-described parameters, no output schema, and provided annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers deprecation, alternatives, supported file formats, partial-update behavior, return value, and error responses. It is slightly weakened by the unresolved PUT/PATCH inconsistency but remains sufficient for an agent to invoke or avoid the tool correctly.

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. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that record fields are nested under 'schedule_integration' in the payload while being passed as top-level arguments, and by clarifying partial-update behavior. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 core action ('Upload a schedule file') and lists supported file formats. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0' and muddles the purpose by repeatedly emphasizing deprecation and pointing to a PUT endpoint.

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 explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool because it is deprecated, names the alternative ('Use the PUT method instead'), and advises using procore_search_endpoints to find a newer version. This is strong when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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