Create Waste Log

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

The description discloses several behaviors beyond annotations: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), success response (HTTP 201 with new id), failure modes (401/403/404 error payloads), and defaulting of project_id when omitted. This provides rich context that annotations do not fully capture.

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 but somewhat disorganized, with markdown headings, multiple links, and a long sentence about error payloads. While each sentence contributes value, the structure could be improved for quick scanning and the links add visual 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, required params, default behavior, idempotency, return value, and error statuses. It could be more complete by explaining the structure of the waste_log object, but the schema already covers that partially via additionalProperties.

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. The description adds meaning for project_id (defaults to procore_set_config value, path parameter), identifies waste_log as a required body parameter, and references the Daily Log guide for attachments. This goes beyond the schema's raw field names.

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 Waste Log', which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this create operation from the sibling list/show/update/delete waste log tools. It also describes the outcome (returns with new id, HTTP 201) and non-idempotency, reinforcing the create purpose.

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 gives clear context: it creates a single Waste Log and mentions required parameters (project_id, waste_log) and the default for project_id from config. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., update_waste_log) or when not to use it, so alternatives are only implied by the tool name.

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