Create Work Log

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses significant behaviors: return with HTTP 201 and new id, non-idempotency, and common failure statuses (401/403/404). It also explains project_id default behavior, adding context not present in 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 front-loads the main action in the first sentence, then provides compact, useful details (endpoint, defaults, errors). It is dense but not bloated, with a logical flow from purpose to behavior to error handling.

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 compensates by explaining the response contains the new id and HTTP 201, plus common error responses. It includes the endpoint and project_id defaults, making it sufficiently complete for a create tool. The work_log object structure is not detailed, but the description links to an external guide.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by stating project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, and points to the Daily Log guide for attachment details. It also notes the required parameters, though there is a slight inconsistency with project_id being marked required 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 states 'Creates single Work Log' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_logs, update_work_log, and delete_work_log. It also includes the exact endpoint and API category, reinforcing the action.

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 tool's creation purpose is clear, and the description provides context such as 'calling it again creates another record' and project_id defaults from config. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different operations (e.g., update_work_log), so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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