Delete A Resource Planning Tag

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

The description aligns with annotations: destructiveHint=true (permanently removes), readOnlyHint=false. It emphasizes the action cannot be undone, which is valuable. However, it does not discuss idempotency or potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletes). The idempotentHint=true is supported by the description implying repeated requests have the same effect.

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 relatively short but contains redundancy: 'permanently delete' and 'Permanently removes' are repetitive, and 'This cannot be undone' appears twice. It also includes endpoint details which are not essential for the agent. Could be more concise.

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?

Given the well-described schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a delete operation. It includes required parameters and irreversibility warning. However, it lacks error context (e.g., what happens if tag not found) and does not mention potential side effects. The openWorldHint suggests external interactions not elaborated.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description merely repeats required parameters without adding new meaning. It adds no extra semantic 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 it deletes a Resource Planning Tag and permanently removes records. However, it alternates between 'tag' and 'records', causing slight ambiguity about what exactly is deleted. The action is clearly a deletion, distinguishing it from read operations.

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 basic context (Procore API module and endpoint) and warns about irreversibility, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get or update operations. It implies use when permanent deletion is intended, but lacks comparison to sibling tools.

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