Update Call Log

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses partial-update behavior, return value (modified call log), error payload with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404), attachment limitations and multipart/form-data requirement, and the project_id default. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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 information-dense and every sentence contributes value, but the formatting is slightly awkward (e.g., '#### See - [Daily Log guide] ... - for additional info on * Attachments'). It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary detail, though a clearer structure could improve scannability.

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 the essential context: prerequisites, defaults, return value, error codes, and attachment upload requirements. It also links to external documentation for deeper details. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults from procore_set_config, id must be resolved via the list tool, and 'omitted fields keep their current values' clarifies call_log behavior. It also points to a guide for attachment details, augmenting the schema descriptions.

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 'Update single Call Log', which clearly states the verb (update) and resource (Call Log), and the PATCH endpoint confirms a single-record update. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_call_logs, create_call_log, and delete_call_log. The purpose is specific and 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 provides actionable guidance: use the matching list tool to resolve the id, project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and only changed fields need to be sent. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like create or delete, but the context and prerequisites are clearly explained.

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