Create Notes Log

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explicitly states non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), describes the success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and enumerates common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also discloses project_id defaulting behavior, adding substantial behavioral context not covered by the structured hints.

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?

At roughly 140 words, the description is dense but not bloated. It front-loads the purpose and packs in defaults, error handling, and endpoint info. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the markdown link and API path add minor noise.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, response format, error handling, and required inputs. It also references a guide for attachments/locations and provides the endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 descriptions already cover all 4 parameters. The description adds value by declaring required parameters and project_id's fallback to procore_set_config, which is not present in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of notes_log or attachments, leaving some semantics to the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Creates single Notes Log,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling notes log tools (list, show, update, delete) via the explicit 'Creates' verb, but does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate beyond that.

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 clear context: it is for creating a notes log, lists required parameters, and explains that project_id falls back to a configured value when omitted. It also notes that repeated calls create multiple records. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit.

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