Update Productivity Log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that it returns the modified object. It also links to a guide for attachments. No contradiction with 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 somewhat verbose with redundant information like 'Procore API: ...' and 'Endpoint: ...' and markdown formatting. It front-loads the main purpose but could be trimmed without losing key details.

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 has no output schema, the description mentions it returns the modified object. It includes a link for attachment details but does not cover error cases or the structure of the productivity_log object. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description lists required parameters and clarifies that productivity_log is the request body, but does not elaborate on allowed fields or structure within productivity_log beyond what the schema provides. The mention of partial update adds some context.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'Productivity Log', and distinguishes it from creation and deletion by specifying 'update existing' records. It also mentions it is for a single log, differentiating from bulk operations.

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 tells when to use the tool (update an existing daily log record) and notes 'only the supplied fields are changed', implying partial updates. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like bulk_updates_for_daily_logs or when not to use this tool.

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