Create Work Log

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, which aligns with the description stating creation returns HTTP 201. The description adds that the created object is returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or consequences of duplicate calls. It provides moderate added value beyond 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 core purpose but contains redundancy ('Creates single Work Log' followed by 'Use this to create... Creates a new Daily Log records...'). The markdown link and extra endpoint details add length, but the information is mostly relevant and organized. Could be trimmed for brevity.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (created object, HTTP 201) and key parameter details (required parameters, attachment upload method). It also provides an external guide for deeper information. For a creation tool with 3 parameters, this is sufficient context 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% and schema descriptions are informative for project_id and attachments. The description reiterates required parameters and adds nuance about attachments (multipart/form-data, scheduled attachments not viewable). However, work_log is described only as 'JSON request body field' without further structure details, so the description adds limited value beyond 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 clearly states it creates a single Work Log and mentions the endpoint and required parameters. It specifies the resource ('Daily Log records' in Procore) with a concrete verb. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling creation tools, the name and context make the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Daily Log records' and notes required parameters, providing basic usage context. It includes a link for attachment details and mentions multipart/form-data for uploads, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like update_work_log or list_work_logs.

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