Update Visitor Log

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

Annotations already provide readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: partial-update semantics ('omitted fields keep their current values'), project_id default from procore_set_config, return value, and error payload details. 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?

Dense, single-paragraph description that is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds operational value: partial update behavior, id resolution, return value, error codes, required params, and endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 correctly states the return value ('modified visitor log') and error handling. It covers prerequisites and defaults. Minor gap: it does not explain the visitor_log object structure or mention the optional run_configurable_validations parameter, though schema covers the latter.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults from config, id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via list tool, and visitor_log is the partial-update body. It does not enumerate nested fields of visitor_log, but the key required parameters are well explained.

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?

Description states 'Updates a single Visitor Log in the specified Project' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_visitor_log, list_visitor_logs, show_visitor_logs, and delete_visitor_log by focusing on the update action for an existing single record.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which is an alternative-tool directive and establishes that the tool is for existing records. It also provides partial-update guidance and error status context (401, 403, 404), helping the agent decide when to invoke or troubleshoot.

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