Delete A Direct Cost Line Item

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that concurrent requests are unsupported (409 conflict), deletion is permanent and irreversible, repeat calls return 404, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404) with meanings. This enriches the basic destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations without 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 longer than minimal but every sentence conveys meaningful information, from concurrency to error handling to endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then structures supporting details logically.

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, concurrency behavior, permanence, and failure modes comprehensively. It does not explicitly describe the success response, but for a delete operation with no output schema, the error handling and permanence information are more critical and well addressed.

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?

The schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, but the description adds valuable context: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and direct_cost_id and id must reference existing records. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's simple 'unique identifier' phrasing.

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 'Delete a specified Direct Cost Line Item', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also specifies the exact endpoint, distinguishing this delete operation from related but distinct tools like delete_direct_cost_item.

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 provides clear usage context, instructing to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to 'resolve them with the matching list tool first' for parent records. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the prerequisites and concurrency warnings offer strong guidance.

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