Delete A Budget Change

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds critical context: it 'Permanently removes the budget change,' 'cannot be undone,' and a repeat call returns 404. It also details common error statuses (401, 403, 404) and how failures are returned, going well beyond the 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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: main action, prerequisites, irreversibility, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

It covers the operation's outcome, irreversibility, error scenarios, parameter defaults, necessary preconditions, and API location. Given the simple two-parameter schema and strong annotations, this description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely and understand the consequences.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context: project_id falls back to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must resolve to an existing parent record. However, the statement about omitting project_id conflicts with the schema marking it required, which slightly muddies the semantics.

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 'Deletes a budget change in the specified Procore project,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also names the API endpoint and domain (Construction Financials > Budget), clearly distinguishing it from the many other delete_* tools in the sibling list.

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 clearly instructs to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling and to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It also explains the project_id default behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with update/create alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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