Create Equipment Maintenance Log (Deprecated)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent), returns the new id with HTTP 201, and how failures surface (error payload with 401/403/404). It also reveals the payload nesting behavior. This significantly exceeds structured data.

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 dense but purposeful: deprecation is front-loaded, creation semantics are stated, error behavior is summarized, and API reference is included. It's longer than necessary for a simple create, but every sentence provides either essential guidance or valuable safety information, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool is somewhat complex (deprecated, non-idempotent, company-scoped with a default) and has no output schema. The description covers creation, return value, common errors, and migration path, which is adequate. It could add more about required permissions or the shape of the created object, but it misses little that an agent would need to invoke correctly.

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. Description adds meaningful semantics: company_id defaults to procore_set_config value when omitted, and records fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested in the payload. This goes beyond schema descriptions, though individual parameter details are left to 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?

Description opens with 'Create a new equipment maintenance log entry' – a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies the company-level scope via the endpoint path and distinguishes itself from siblings by flagging deprecation and pointing to newer versions, so an agent can tell it apart from project-scoped or list/update/delete siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: 'DEPRECATED... prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists' and instructs to 'use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' It also notes company_id defaults to procore_set_config, giving clear context for invocation. This is strong guidance for selecting the right tool.

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