Update Safety Violation Log

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

The description states 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update) and 'returns the modified object on success.' This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) and does not contradict them. It provides useful behavioral traits like the nature of the update and return value.

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 contains extra elements like a link to documentation, API endpoint details, and context about Procore API. While structured, it is somewhat verbose and could be more concise by removing redundant references or moving them to external documentation.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value. It covers the update operation, partial updates, required parameters, and attachment handling. It is sufficiently complete for an update tool, though it does not detail the structure of the safety_violation_log object (which is flexible via additionalProperties).

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?

The description notes the required parameters (project_id, id, safety_violation_log) and explains the attachments parameter requires multipart/form-data. Since the input schema already has 100% description coverage, the description adds extra context about usage and required fields, improving clarity.

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' and explains it updates existing Daily Log records, returning the modified object. The purpose is specific to updating, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_safety_violation_log or delete_safety_violation_log, relying on the verb 'update'.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Daily Log records (only the supplied fields are changed),' which clearly indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or what alternatives exist for creation or deletion, so the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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