Bulk Destroy Actual Production Quantities

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description repeats that the action cannot be undone, which reinforces but doesn't add new information. It does mention that it permanently removes records, which aligns with the destructive hint. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations convey. With annotations present, the description adds limited value.

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 longer than necessary, repeating 'This cannot be undone' twice. It also includes extraneous information like the Procore API category and full endpoint URL, which may not be essential for an AI agent. The repeated warnings waste words without adding value. A more concise version could convey the same information in fewer sentences.

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?

The tool is a bulk destroy operation with no output schema. The description covers the core action, irreversibility, and required parameters. It provides enough context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and what is needed. However, it does not mention the expected response or error cases, but for a destroy operation, this is often acceptable. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (project_id and actual_production_quantity_ids). The description lists these required parameters but does not add any new semantics or details beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it doesn't explain the format of the IDs array or any constraints. Thus, the description adds no meaningful enhancement to the schema.

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 title and description clearly state the tool's purpose: to bulk destroy Actual Production Quantities. It specifies the action (bulk destroy) and the resource (Actual Production Quantities). The description also mentions it is a permanent delete operation. Among siblings, there are related tools like bulk_update_actual_production_quantities and delete_actual_production_quantity, making this distinct.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Field Productivity records', which indicates when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives. It does not differentiate from other bulk destroy or deletion tools available as siblings. The guidance is minimal and does not include exclusions or context for choosing this tool over others.

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