Update Notes Log

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

Annotations indicate a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that updates are partial ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object. It does not disclose that attachments require multipart/form-data (though schema does), nor does it mention authorization or rate limits. Value added beyond annotations is limited.

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 reasonably concise with several sentences. It includes a link for additional info, lists required params, and mentions API path. The 'Procore API: ...' line may be redundant for an API tool, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 5 parameters (including nested objects and attachments) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to handle attachments (multipart requirement is only in schema), describe the return structure, or mention error handling. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the required parameters (project_id, id, notes_log) without adding new semantic information about constraints, formats, or relationships. No extra value beyond the schema.

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 Notes Log') and resource ('existing Daily Log records'). It specifies that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object. It implicitly differentiates from bulk updates by noting 'single', but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'bulk_updates_for_daily_logs'.

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 basic usage guidance: 'Use this to update an existing Daily Log records (only the supplied fields are changed).' It lists required parameters. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives like 'create_notes_log' or 'delete_notes_log', nor does it state when not to use the tool.

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