Bulk Delete Attachments

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

The description richly supplements the annotations by disclosing that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and that a repeat call returns 404. It also explains error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and the company_id default from configuration. These insights go well beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph with no fluff. Every sentence contributes essential information: action, preconditions, default behavior, permanence, error handling, required params, and API reference. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 destructive bulk delete operation with no output schema, the description covers critical aspects: prerequisites, irreversibility, idempotency (repeat 404), failure modes with HTTP statuses, and defaults. It provides sufficient context for an agent to safely invoke the tool and interpret failures, making it strongly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context: company_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and asset_id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 'Deletes multiple attachments in a single request,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and bulk scope. This distinguishes it from single-attachment delete tools (e.g., delete_attachment_company) and project-scoped bulk delete variants (bulk_delete_attachments_project). The endpoint details further reinforce the exact operation.

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 actionable usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'asset_id must identify an existing parent record.' It also documents the default behavior of company_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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