Update Delay Log

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that omitted fields retain current values (partial update), returns the modified log, and details common failures (401, 403, 404). It also references the Daily Log guide for attachments, adding significant behavioral context.

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 a single dense paragraph starting with the core purpose. It includes a markdown link and several auxiliary details, but every sentence contributes useful information (partial updates, defaults, errors, API reference). It is not overly verbose.

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 tool with a nested delay_log object and no output schema, the description covers return value, error handling, prerequisites, and default behavior, and references the guide for attachments. Required parameters are listed, though run_configurable_validations is not mentioned in the description, though the schema covers it.

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 parameters, but the description adds meaning by explaining that delay_log uses partial update semantics and that project_id can default from procore_set_config. It also points to the guide for attachments, enriching the otherwise generic 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 Delay Log,' clearly identifying the verb (update), resource (Delay Log), and scope (single). This explicitly differentiates it from create/delete/list siblings by operation and resource.

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 instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first and explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'). It also notes project_id defaults from procore_set_config, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with create/delete but implies the use case.

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