Delete A Budgeted Production Quantity

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

The description reinforces the destructive nature with 'cannot be undone', which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: true). However, it adds no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide, such as idempotency or side effects. The description is consistent with 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 fairly concise but contains redundancy: 'This cannot be undone. Permanently removes the specified Budget records. This action cannot be undone.' This repetition wastes space. The API endpoint info is useful but could be integrated more efficiently.

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 simplicity of the delete operation and the presence of annotations, the description is relatively complete. It specifies the project association, irreversibility, and required parameters. It also includes the Procore API details for debugging. Minor omissions like cascading effects or permissions are acceptable for a delete tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds that project_id and id are required, which is useful but contradicts the schema (only id is marked required). This creates potential confusion, though the endpoint path suggests both are indeed required.

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 clearly states the action (deleting), the resource (Budgeted Production Quantity), and the association with a Project. It uses specific verbs like 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, show, update, and 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?

The description implies usage by stating 'Use this to permanently delete...' and lists required parameters (project_id, id). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., update or show), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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