Delete A Company Action Plan Templates

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds the permanence warning ('This cannot be undone') and the 404 response on repeat calls. It goes beyond annotations by explaining the defaulting behavior of company_id and enumerating common error statuses (401, 403, 404), which is valuable operational detail.

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 paragraph but includes multiple pieces of important information: primary action, prerequisite, defaulting behavior, permanence, error semantics, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is somewhat verbose but all sentences add value and it is structured logically, moving from action to use guidance to error handling.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the success response format (e.g., status code or body), which is a gap. It does cover errors, idempotency, defaulting, and prerequisite steps, so it is fairly complete for invocation. However, the absence of success return information is a notable omission for a delete operation where the call outcome should be clear.

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 has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record to be resolved with the list tool. It also names both as 'Required parameters,' though that is already in 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 description opens with 'Deletes a company action plan template for the specified Procore company,' which is a specific verb-object statement. It also clarifies that it 'Permanently removes the company action plan template,' distinguishing it from create/update/show 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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' telling the agent to use a list/show tool to obtain a valid id. It also states that company_id defaults to procore_set_config, which is context about when the parameter can be omitted. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but the scope is clearly limited to company-level templates.

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