Update Project Equipment Maintenance Log (Deprecated)

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

Beyond annotations (write, open world, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behaviors: the request payload nesting ('nested under 'managed_equipment_maintenance_log' in the request payload for you'), the configuration default for project_id, the requirement that id must reference an existing record, and the error response structure. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of runtime behavior.

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 a single dense paragraph with no filler. Each sentence contributes unique information: action, deprecation, update semantics, payload handling, defaults, ID resolution, return value, error codes, and endpoint context. The critical deprecation warning is front-loaded, making the structure effective.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description covers the return value and error formats. It addresses prerequisites (ID resolution), configuration defaults, and deprecation alternatives. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters and 2 required, the description leaves no significant gap in how to invoke it 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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that all non-required fields are optional for partial updates, that fields are passed top-level (not nested manually), and that project_id defaults to a configured value. It also corrects the schema's misleading id description ('iD of the company') by stating id must be an existing parent record resolved via the list tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Updates an existing project equipment maintenance log in the specified Procore project.' It also states the return value ('Returns the modified project equipment maintenance log on success'), making the purpose unambiguous. The deprecation notice and reference to newer versions further clarify its position, distinguishing it from the listed siblings like update_equipment_maintenance_log and create_project_equipment_maintenance_log.

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 explicitly instructs on partial update semantics: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values.' It also tells the agent how to resolve required IDs ('resolve it with the matching list tool first') and when to avoid this tool ('prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it'). Common failure codes (401/403/404) are mapped to causes, providing actionable guidance.

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