Create Daily Construction Report Log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing the HTTP 201 return with new id, failure payload with common status codes (401/403/404), the project_id default behavior, and the multipart/form-data requirement for attachments. This gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations.

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 purpose, but contains redundancy: 'Creates single Daily Construction Report Log' and 'Creates the daily construction report log...' say nearly the same thing. The trailing 'Required parameters' and 'Procore API/Endpoint' sentences are useful metadata but could be condensed or structured.

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?

The description covers return behavior (new id, 201), common error codes, default project_id, and multipart content-type. However, with no output schema and a loosely defined daily_construction_report_log object (additionalProperties allowed), the agent is left without guidance on required fields inside the request body. This is a notable gap for a create operation.

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 the project_id default and mentions required parameters, but this creates an internal contradiction: it lists project_id as required while also saying it defaults when omitted. It does not elaborate on the nested daily_construction_report_log object beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 Daily Construction Report Log', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list/show/update/delete) by explicitly stating it creates a new record and returns it with a new id (HTTP 201), and notes that 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?

Clear context: use to create a single daily construction report log, with the note that it is not idempotent and project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted. It does not provide exclusions or explicit alternative tool references, but the create-vs-read/write intent is apparent.

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