Delete A LOV Code

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses irreversibility, the 404 on repeat calls, and expected HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is valuable behavioral context that cannot be inferred from the schema or annotations alone.

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 information-dense, but contains minor redundancy: 'Permanently deletes' and 'Permanently removes the LOV code' repeat the same idea. Each other sentence contributes unique value (preconditions, defaults, error handling, endpoint). Overall it is appropriately sized.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, defaults, error scenarios, and the exact endpoint. It does not describe the successful response body, but for a DELETE operation that is often empty and not critical. The provided annotations and schema cover most structural expectations.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are minimal ('URL path parameter — unique identifier'). The description adds meaningful details: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, and code_id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/path info.

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 'Permanently deletes a naming standard LOV code mapping,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this company-scoped tool from the project-scoped sibling (delete_a_lov_code_project) and includes the exact API endpoint.

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 gives explicit pre-call guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and tells the caller to resolve code_id with a list tool first. It also explains the default behavior for company_id. It stops short of contrasting with other delete tools or stating when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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