Update Work Log

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals important behaviors: partial update semantics (omitted fields keep current values), defaulting of project_id from configuration, the need for an existing id, the success return value (modified work log), and error payload details with common HTTP statuses. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps an agent anticipate side effects and failures.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides useful detail on partial updates, defaults, errors, and endpoint. It is a bit long and includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Required parameters: project_id, id, work_log' is already in the schema), but every other sentence contributes meaningful operational context. Overall it is efficient without being bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value (modified work log) and error payload structure. It covers the essential operational aspects: how to perform a partial update, how to obtain the id, the default for project_id, and attachment considerations via a guide link. For a tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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?

Although the schema documents all parameters, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that the work_log object is sent with only the fields to change, that project_id can default from procore_set_config, and that id must identify an existing record resolved via a list tool. These are semantic details not inferable from the schema definitions alone, going well beyond the baseline for 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 opens with 'Update single Work Log', a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_logs, create_work_log, show_work_logs, and delete_work_log. The phrase 'single' and the guidance about partial updates further clarify that this tool modifies an existing log rather than creating or retrieving one.

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 clear usage context: it is for updating an existing work log, requires an id that must be resolved with the matching list tool first, and mentions that project_id can default from configuration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools beyond the list tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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