Delete A Compliance Document.

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description explicitly states permanence ('Permanently removes... This cannot be undone'), the repeat-call behavior (returns 404), and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds substantial behavioral context consistent with the annotations and no contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action, then prerequisites, consequences, errors, and API details. It is somewhat repetitive (resolving ids mentioned twice) but stays within a reasonable length for a destructive tool.

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?

Covers prerequisites, permanent consequences, error handling, and endpoint information. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about the successful response (e.g., 204 No Content), but for a DELETE operation this is less critical and partially mitigated by the annotations and error descriptions.

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% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about parent record resolution but also introduces a misleading claim about project_id defaulting, which detracts from parameter clarity. It mostly repeats the required-parameters list already present 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 a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Delete the specified compliance document.' It further disambiguates the resource by specifying the endpoint path and the API section, making it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from related delete tools.

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 explicit preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and instructs to 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' However, the statement that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' conflicts with the schema's required parameter list, which could confuse an agent about when the parameter can be omitted.

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