Update An Project Equipment Log (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world hints), the description discloses deprecation and removal date, partial-update semantics, payload nesting, default project_id behavior, required prerequisites (existing id), return value, and common error statuses. This adds substantial behavioral context with no contradiction.

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?

At roughly 200 words, the description is dense but every sentence provides value—from deprecation warning to partial-update semantics to error handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically. No redundant or filler content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle (deprecated), usage prerequisites, parameter layout, defaulting, success returns, and failure statuses. It also names the API category and endpoint, making it self-sufficient. This is a complete picture for an agent.

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?

The schema already covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds key semantics: only changed fields need be sent, fields are top-level arguments but nested under 'managed_equipment_log' in the payload, project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and id must reference an existing record. This meaningfully aids parameter usage 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 opens with 'Updates an existing project equipment log in the specified Procore project,' clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself by flagging the endpoint as DEPRECATED and pointing to a newer version via procore_search_endpoints. This is a specific and actionable purpose statement.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to prefer a newer version of this resource and how to find it (use procore_search_endpoints). It also provides usage rules: send only fields to change, omitted fields keep current values, and resolve id with the matching list tool first. This is clear when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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