Create Safety Violation Log

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

Discloses non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), success status (HTTP 201), and common error payloads (401/403/404). These details extend beyond the annotations and give the agent concrete expectations for invocation outcomes.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes a markdown heading, a link, and trailing API/endpoint details that could be slightly condensed. Each sentence offers useful information, though the structure is a bit disjointed.

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 without an output schema, the description covers required inputs, default behavior, return value (new id with HTTP 201), non-idempotency, and error handling. It also links to the Daily Log guide for attachment details, making it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by stating that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted and reiterates the required parameters, providing context not present 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 begins with 'Creates single Safety Violation Log', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this create operation from sibling list/update/delete tools and explains it returns the new id with HTTP 201.

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 useful context such as project_id defaulting to procore_set_config, required parameters, and common failure statuses. It warns that calling again creates another record, implying it is for creating new logs only, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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