Bulk Delete Managed Equipment Attachment (Deprecated)

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations by stating the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and returns 404 on repeat calls. It also details likely HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404) and explains the company_id default behavior, which annotations do not cover.

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: purpose, deprecation status, prerequisites, parameter handling, permanence, failure modes, required parameters, and endpoint. It is logically ordered and avoids repeating annotation information, earning its length.

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, deprecated tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the full context: when to use, deprecation alternatives, resource resolution, parameter wrapping, config defaults, success/failure behavior, and the exact endpoint. Nothing important is missing.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable, non-obvious context: fields must be passed as top-level arguments despite being nested under 'managed_equipment_attachment' in the payload, and company_id falls back to the procore_set_config value. This reduces parameter misuse risk.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete multiple Managed Equipment Attachments with one request.' It clearly distinguishes from the singular 'delete_managed_equipment_attachment' sibling and includes deprecation and endpoint context, 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?

It explicitly warns of deprecation, instructs to use procore_search_endpoints to find a newer version, and mandates confirming the target id with a show or list tool before calling. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus prerequisites and configuration defaults.

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