Create An Project Equipment Log (Deprecated)

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

The description discloses non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record') and specific failure modes (401, 403, 404), which goes beyond the annotations' minimal hints. It also explains that fields are nested under 'managed_equipment_log' in the payload, a crucial detail. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, and destructiveHint false annotations.

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 each section earns its place: purpose, deprecation warning, payload detail, default behavior, non-idempotency, error codes, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the primary action and structured with clear information.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the return value ('returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)') and error behavior, which is adequate. It also includes deprecation context and API endpoint, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by clarifying that parameters should be passed as top-level arguments and are nested under 'managed_equipment_log,' and that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted. It also restates required parameters, which helps.

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 a new project equipment log in the specified Procore project,' providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like update/delete/list by explicitly stating the create action and mentioning the 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?

It clearly states the tool creates a new log and advises that the endpoint is deprecated, directing users to 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' This gives explicit guidance on when not to use it and how to find alternatives. It also notes that calling it again creates another record, warning about non-idempotent use.

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