Create Equipment Log

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

Discloses non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), return behavior (HTTP 201 with new id), and error payload semantics for common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds value beyond the annotations and aligns with idempotentHint=false.

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 well-structured with a leading purpose statement, a link for additional info, and explicit API endpoint and required parameters. Slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., 'Required parameters' echoes the schema), but every section serves a clear informational purpose.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers creation behavior, response status, error handling, project_id default, and links to a guide for attachments/locations. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it relies on the schema for full parameter details.

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 meaningful context for project_id (defaults to procore_set_config value when omitted) and reiterates required parameters. It also indirectly references attachments via the guide link, though most parameter meaning is already in the schema.

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 'Creates single Equipment Log' with a specific verb and resource. The name and endpoint clarify the project-scoped nature, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the similarly named sibling tool create_an_project_equipment_log.

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?

Provides implied usage via the Daily Log guide link and notes project_id defaults to procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_equipment_log_company or create_an_project_equipment_log, nor any exclusions.

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