Update Inspection Log

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the PATCH semantics with field omission, the default project_id behavior, the requirement that id must reference an existing record, and details of error responses (401/403/404). This is valuable for the agent to understand the tool's side effects and failure modes.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear one-line summary, followed by a link to documentation and then concise usage notes. It is longer than minimal but every sentence contributes useful information, so it remains efficient.

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?

The description is comprehensive for an update tool with no output schema: it covers the action, parameters, defaults, required resolution, return behavior, and common errors. The link to the Daily Log guide provides additional depth for edge cases like attachments and locations.

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 description adds important parameter semantics that the schema lacks: project_id can be omitted to use a configured default, id must be resolved via a list tool, and inspection_log supports partial updates. With 100% schema coverage, this extra guidance raises the score above the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Update single Inspection Log'), specifies the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint, and distinguishes it from create/list/delete siblings by using the verb 'update'. It also clarifies the partial-update semantics.

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 usage context: it explains the partial-update behavior, the default for project_id from procore_set_config, and instructs the agent to resolve the id with the list tool first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, which is a minor gap.

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