Update Safety Violation Log

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

The description discloses partial-update behavior, project_id defaulting, id existence requirement, success return value, and error payloads with common HTTP status causes (401, 403, 404). This adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true) without any contradiction.

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 long but dense with useful information, front-loading the purpose and then detailing behavior, parameters, and error conditions. Every sentence earns its place, though the '####' markdown and slightly run-on sentence structure could be tightened.

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 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the return value, error payloads, default behavior, prerequisite id resolution, and the API endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing required parameters, explaining the project_id default, and instructing the agent to resolve id via the list tool. It also references the Daily Log guide for attachments, though it leaves the safety_violation_log object fields unspecified.

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 'Update single Safety Violation Log' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_safety_violation_log, list_safety_violation_logs, show_safety_violation_logs, and delete_safety_violation_log. It also clarifies partial-update semantics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: send only fields to change, omitted fields retain values, project_id defaults from procore_set_config, and id must be resolved with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context for when to use this update tool is clear.

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