Create Accident Log

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), return value with HTTP 201, error payload details with common status codes (401, 403, 404), and project_id default behavior. It also links to the Daily Log guide for attachments. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence provides useful information (defaults, errors, endpoint). However, there is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the later 'Creates the accident log and returns it...' phrase, and the '####' markdown break is a bit awkward.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description covers return value, error codes, default behavior, and required parameters. The main gap is the lack of detail about the accident_log object's internal fields (schema uses additionalProperties: {}), though the Daily Log guide link provides some external support.

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 valuable information not in the schema: project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and required parameters are restated. It does not elaborate on the accident_log object structure, but the schema already identifies it as the body field.

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 'Creates single Accident Log', clearly stating the action and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (list, show, update, delete) by specifying creation, and further clarifies non-idempotent behavior: 'calling it again creates another record'.

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: it states required parameters, explains the default for project_id via procore_set_config, and warns about duplicate records. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use update_accident_log to modify', but the usage context is well-defined without exclusions.

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