Bulk Delete Managed Equipment (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral depth: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, repeat calls return 404, and common failure modes (401/403/404) are enumerated. It also discloses the payload nesting wrapper and company_id default, which annotations do not convey. No contradictions with 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 long but every sentence earns its place: deprecation notice, replacement search, ID confirmation, payload handling, default configuration, irreversibility, error behavior, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then flows logically through critical caveats.

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 deprecated, destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what is deleted, deprecation timeline, how to find alternatives, preconditions, parameter behavior, permanence, and error responses. There are no significant gaps in the information an agent would need to decide and invoke 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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful invocation details: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, and the agent must pass fields as top-level arguments rather than nesting them under 'managed_equipment'. This reduces ambiguity about how to structure calls, warranting 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 clearly states the action ('Delete multiple Managed Equipment with one request'), the resource (Managed Equipment), and the scope (bulk/multiple). The deprecation notice and endpoint path further disambiguate it from single-delete or attachment-delete tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it warns that the endpoint is deprecated, directs the agent to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it, and instructs to confirm target IDs with a show/list tool before calling. This is clear alternative and precondition guidance.

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