Create Visitor Log

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing specific error behavior (401/403/404 statuses), the return value (new id with HTTP 201), and explicitly states that calling it again creates another record (reinforcing non-idempotency). It also explains the default for project_id, which is not evident from annotations or schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and information-dense: purpose, default behavior, return type, idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and API reference are all conveyed in four sentences. No redundant phrases or filler. The most important information (creation action) is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return (new id, HTTP 201) and error payload. It also mentions the endpoint and module (Project Management > Daily Log), and the default project_id behavior, which is critical for the calling context. The sibling list includes full CRUD for visitor logs, so the create role is contextualized. No significant missing context.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by noting that project_id defaults to the config value when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also lists required parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the visitor_log object (though schema says additionalProperties {}), so a small gap exists.

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 a single Visitor Log in the specified Project' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this create operation from sibling tools like list_visitor_logs, show_visitor_logs, update_visitor_log, and delete_visitor_log. It also clarifies the scope (single Visitor Log) and confirms 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to create a new Visitor Log. It also provides practical context, such as project_id defaulting to procore_set_config when omitted, which helps decide when the parameter can be skipped. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other operations, so it falls short of a full 5.

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