Update Waste Log

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true), the description adds significant behavioral detail: partial update semantics, project_id defaulting from procore_set_config, requirement that id must identify an existing parent record, return value on success, and error payload details with common HTTP statuses. This fully discloses the operational 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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: action, guide link, update semantics, parameter defaults, id resolution, return value, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the guide link and markdown formatting add slight noise.

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?

For a tool with 4 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, invocation behavior, success/error responses, and API reference. It also provides a link to additional documentation for attachments, making it complete enough for an agent to select and use 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, id must be resolved via list tool, and the partial-update behavior applies to the waste_log object fields. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 'Update single Waste Log,' which uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Waste Log'), and the 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from list/create/delete operations. It also provides the exact API endpoint, making the tool's 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 gives clear context for use: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values,' and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context strongly implies this is for updating an existing record, not creating or deleting.

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