Bulk Delete Time And Material Attachments

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

Beyond annotations that already mark this as destructive, the description adds key behavioral context: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures return HTTP statuses (401/403/404). It also explains the parameter nesting behavior and project_id default, providing rich detail the 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 long but every sentence contributes useful information: action, confirmation step, payload handling, default behavior, permanence, error mapping, required params, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, how to confirm target ids, how parameters are handled, what happens on failure, and permandeletion semantics. The API endpoint and category are included for reference. It is fully sufficient for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted and that fields must be passed as top-level arguments despite being nested under 'time_and_material_entry_attachment' in the payload. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete multiple Time and Material Attachments with one request.' This distinguishes it from the singular delete_a_time_and_material_attachment sibling and clearly conveys the bulk scope. The resource is specific and 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?

The description provides explicit pre-use guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling.' It also clarifies when project_id is omitted and what errors occur without permission. It does not explicitly mention the alternative singular delete tool, but the bulk semantics are clear from the name and first sentence.

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