Update Plan Revision Log

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

Beyond annotations (write operation, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses PATCH semantics, project_id defaulting from procore_set_config, the need to resolve an existing id, the return value (modified object), and failure modes with common HTTP statuses. This provides strong behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but each sentence carries information. The '#### See - [Daily Log guide]...' formatting is slightly awkward and could be streamlined, but the content is well-organized from purpose to endpoint and error handling.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (modified object) and covers error responses, defaulting behavior, and prerequisite id resolution. The link to the Daily Log guide supplements attachment details. This is complete for an update tool with a nested parameter.

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 already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: project_id defaults from config when omitted, id must reference an existing parent record, and the partial-update behavior for plan_revision_log. This raises it above 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 opens with 'Update single Plan Revision Log' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_plan_revision_log, list_plan_revision_logs, and delete_plan_revision_log. It also identifies the exact API endpoint, reinforcing the tool's scope.

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?

It provides partial-update guidance ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly contrast with create/delete siblings, but the update verb and prerequisite guidance imply the intended use case. Error-code guidance (401/403/404) adds useful context for troubleshooting.

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