Update Daily Construction Report 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 adds valuable behaviors: partial update semantics, default project_id behavior, return payload (modified log on success), and HTTP error patterns (401/403/404). This is a substantial enrichment over the sparse annotations and better prepares the agent for real-world responses.

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 compact yet information-dense, with each sentence contributing: purpose, partial update behavior, id resolution, success/error outputs, required params, and API endpoint. It is well-structured, though the final API reference sentences could be trimmed; overall it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

It covers key invocation concerns: how to identify the record (via list tool), project_id default, error handling, and the endpoint. However, the required nested 'daily_construction_report_log' object is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, which is a significant gap for a complex object with additionalProperties. The return value is mentioned, but field-level semantics remain incomplete, warranting a below-average completeness score.

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%, meeting the baseline, but the description adds meaning: it explains that project_id can default from config, id must reference an existing record (resolve via list tool), and clarifies which parameters are required. For the nested daily_construction_report_log object, the schema is generic and the description does not elaborate on its contents, but the added context exceeds the schema basics.

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 Daily Construction Report Log,' clearly stating the verb (update) and resource (Daily Construction Report Log). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/list/delete by focusing on modifying an existing record and even provides the exact PATCH endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about its 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 practical guidance: send only fields to change, omitted fields retain current values, project_id defaults from procore_set_config, resolve id via the matching list tool first, and error status meanings. It effectively tells the agent when and how to use this tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with 'create' for new records, but that is easily inferred from the update semantics.

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