Delete A Classification

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces the destructive nature with 'This cannot be undone' and 'Permanently removes,' which adds minimal value beyond annotations. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations already provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 moderately concise but contains redundancy: 'This cannot be undone. Permanently removes the specified Company Settings. This action cannot be undone.' The mention of the Procore API endpoint is helpful but not critical. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, but could be tighter.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, side effects). It does not. The confusion between 'classification' and 'Company Settings' also detracts from completeness. For a destructive action, more context about impact on related data or permissions is needed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats parameter names and declares them required, which the schema already does. It adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 a classification associated with the specified project.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'classification' are explicit. However, it repeatedly refers to 'Company Settings' instead of classifications, which may cause confusion. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_classification' only through slight naming difference, but the purpose is clear.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide criteria for selecting this tool over other delete-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The only additional note is 'Required parameters: project_id, id,' which is already clear from the schema.

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