Create Manpower Log

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), the successful HTTP 201 response with new id, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also discloses the project_id default behavior, providing valuable execution context.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the markdown section for the Daily Log guide and the run-on sentence about errors make it slightly less polished than ideal, though every sentence provides relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description covers return values (new id, HTTP 201) and failure modes (error payloads with common statuses). It also addresses attachments/locations via the guide, parameter defaults, and required parameters, making it sufficiently complete 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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context by stating that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and highlights required parameters. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 Manpower Log' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools (list, show, update, delete) by focusing on creation and mentioning the success response with a new id.

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 implies when to use (when creating a new manpower log) and adds relevant context like project_id defaulting to procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'for updates, use update_manpower_log'.

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