Bulk Delete Attachments

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: permanently removes, cannot be undone, repeat call returns 404, common failure statuses (401/403/404), and defaults for company_id/project_id. The destructiveHint and idempotentHint are reinforced with concrete HTTP semantics.

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 long but every sentence carries unique information: preconditions, permanence, error behavior, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by critical usage warnings. No filler or repetition.

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 operation with conditional parameters, the description explains prerequisites, resolution steps, failure modes, and scope. The annotations and full schema coverage handle safety and parameter details, while the description fills in the remaining operational context. No output schema is needed for a delete endpoint.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical relationships: select_all vs attachment_ids (mutually dependent), excluded_attachment_ids only when select_all is true, and the defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config. This goes well beyond the schema's field-level 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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Deletes multiple attachments for a project-scoped asset type in a single request.' It clearly distinguishes this bulk operation from singular delete tools and company-scoped variants, and the endpoint path makes the scope explicit.

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?

Provides clear preconditions: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool, resolve asset_type_id with the matching list tool, and notes defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.

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