Delete A Proposal From The Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description reinforces the irreversibility and permanence, adding context. It does not contradict annotations; however, it doesn't address idempotentHint or rate limits, but the destructive nature is well-covered.

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 verbose and contains redundancy (e.g., 'cannot be undone' mentioned twice, 'permanently delete' repeated). It could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, persistence, required parameters, API version, and endpoint. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise sufficient for the simple operation.

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 descriptive parameter fields. The description only lists required parameters without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not add value beyond 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 clearly states the tool deletes a proposal (Estimating record) permanently, with specific verb 'delete' and resource 'proposal from the project'. It distinguishes the tool's scope (Preconstruction > Estimating) and is distinct from siblings like the v2.0 variant.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Estimating records' but does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as the v2.0 sibling or soft-delete options. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit exclusions.

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