Create Delivery Log

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), the success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and common error statuses (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolved id). It also explains the project_id default, which is valuable operational context. No contradiction with 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 compact and information-dense, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds specific value: default behavior, non-idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. There is no wasted wording.

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 the creation behavior, return value (new id, HTTP 201), error handling, and API reference, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. However, it leaves a gap regarding the structure of the delivery_log object, and the contradictory project_id default/required information could confuse an agent, so it's not fully complete for autonomous invocation.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful info about required parameters and project_id default, but the claim that project_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' contradicts the schema's required list, which marks project_id as required. This inconsistency reduces the value of the parameter guidance, and it does not clarify the structure of the delivery_log object beyond the schema's vague 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Creates single Delivery Log in the specified Project.' It identifies the resource (Delivery Log), scope (Project), and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_delivery_log and delete_delivery_log by focusing on the create operation and non-idempotency ('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 for when to use the tool (to create a new delivery log) and mentions the default project_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_delivery_log) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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