Create Dumpster Log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and idempotent=false; the description adds valuable context that calling it again creates another record, returns HTTP 201 with the new id, and surfaces common error codes. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 opens with a clear, concise purpose statement and then packs in relevant details about defaults, error handling, and attachments. It is slightly dense and uses a markdown link and bullet fragment, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a create tool with no output schema, it covers the essential context: what it creates, the return value (HTTP 201 with new id), failure codes, parameter defaults, and a link to the Daily Log guide for attachments. More detail on the response body structure would make it more complete, but it is largely sufficient.

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%, and the description adds useful details like project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and attachments requiring multipart/form-data. However, it creates an internal inconsistency: project_id is listed as required in the schema and at the end of the description, yet the description also says it defaults when omitted. This undermines parameter clarity.

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 begins with 'Creates single Dumpster Log', a specific verb + resource, and further specifies the exact endpoint POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/dumpster_logs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list, show, update, and delete tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use: mentions that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, warns that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent), and lists common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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