Delete A LOV Code

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

The description goes well beyond the provided annotations by stating that the action cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures return an error payload with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also discloses the default behavior for company_id and project_id, adding valuable context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes useful details like endpoint and error codes. It is slightly redundant with 'Permanently deletes' repeated as 'Permanently removes the LOV code' and similar advice about resolving the id stated twice, preventing a perfect score.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, how to prepare the id, default parameter behavior, irreversibility, repeated-call consequence, error handling, required parameters, API version, and endpoint. This is fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds essential semantics: company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config, and code_id must identify an existing parent record that should be resolved with a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'unique identifier' descriptions.

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 project naming standard LOV code mapping,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this project-scoped delete from the company-scoped sibling delete_a_lov_code_company through wording and the included project-level 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?

It explicitly instructs to confirm the target id with a matching show or list tool before calling and to resolve code_id with the list tool first. It also notes that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted. However, it does not explicitly name the exact alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it loses one point.

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