Bulk Destroy Action Plan Template Receivers

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description reveals that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404. It further details common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404), which exceeds the annotation baseline and provides valuable behavioral context for error handling.

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 covering purpose, safe usage, irreversibility, error codes, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly longer than necessary; a structured list might improve scannability.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers the destructive nature, error statuses, required parameters, and endpoint. It also includes notes about payload nesting and project_id defaulting, making it fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely and 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 description lists all required parameters (project_id, plan_template_id, ids) and adds crucial meaning beyond the schema by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested under 'plan_template_receivers' in the payload. The project_id default behavior is also disclosed, which the schema does not provide.

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 states 'Bulk Destroy Action Plan Template Receivers from a given Project Action Plan Template' with a specific verb (Bulk Destroy), resource (Action Plan Template Receivers), and scope (from a given Project Action Plan Template). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete_action_plan_template_receiver by the 'Bulk' prefix and includes the API endpoint for unambiguous identification.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling,' a clear precondition. It also explains the project_id default from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with single-delete alternatives (e.g., delete_action_plan_template_receiver), so it misses a full 5.

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