Update Visitor Log

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

The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned on success. This goes beyond the annotations (which mark it as not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world) but still lacks information on authorization needs or error conditions, so it is adequate but not excellent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and partial update behavior. The last sentence lists required parameters and includes Procore API details, which is somewhat extraneous but not overly verbose. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the API endpoint, but overall it is well-structured.

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 description specifies that the return value is the modified object on success, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not describe error scenarios, and the visitor_log parameter's structure is left undefined (though annotations hint at open world). The tool is relatively simple, so the description is adequate but could provide more context on the input object's expected fields.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond confirming required parameters and noting the partial update behavior. The visitor_log parameter description is vague ('the visitor log for this Daily Log operation'), and the description does not elaborate on its structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 it updates a single Visitor Log in a specified project, using the verb 'Updates' and specifying the resource. It also clarifies that it updates existing Daily Log records and only changes supplied fields, which distinguishes it from related tools like create or delete.

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', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., create_visitor_log for new records), which would improve the score.

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