Update Dumpster Log

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), a default for project_id from procore_set_config, the return value on success, and error response patterns (401, 403, 404). This significantly exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

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 efficient and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then covers usage, defaults, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, partial update semantics, parameter defaults, id resolution, return value, error codes, and endpoint. It does not specify all fields within dumpster_log, but the schema provides placeholders and a linked guide covers attachments. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an Agent to invoke 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?

The schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the configured value, that omitted fields retain values (partial update), and that id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the contents of the dumpster_log object itself.

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 states 'Update single Dumpster Log' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a PATCH operation on one existing log. It also differentiates from sibling tools (create/show/delete) by the focus on updating an existing record, and the instruction to resolve the id with the matching list tool reinforces this distinction.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to update an existing dumpster log by id. It explicitly instructs to resolve the id via the matching list tool first and describes the partial-update behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for creating new logs), so it falls short of a full 5.

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