Delete A Crew

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint false), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'Permanently removes the crew. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses error payload behavior with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) and explains that fields are nested under 'crew' in the payload, which the tool handles automatically.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then usage, default behavior, irreversibility, error codes, required parameters, and endpoint reference. Although slightly long, every sentence contributes necessary information without repetition.

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?

For a delete operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers id resolution, default project_id, payload nesting, irreversibility, idempotent repeat behavior, common failure modes, and the exact endpoint. No major gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Required parameters: project_id, id,' which disambiguates the required subset from optional body fields. It also explains project_id defaulting behavior and that record fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the request payload.

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 starts with 'Deleting a Crew associated with the specified Project,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_all_project_crews, create_a_new_crew, update_a_crew, and show_a_crew.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' providing strong procedural guidance. It also clarifies that project_id defaults to procore_set_config, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-delete operations.

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