Delete A Resource Request

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by emphasizing permanence ('This cannot be undone') and the irreversible nature, which goes beyond the annotation flags.

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 concise at four sentences, but it redundantly repeats 'This cannot be undone' twice. It front-loads the core action and includes useful context like the Procore API endpoint, though the redundancy slightly detracts.

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 simple delete operation, the description covers the main purpose, permanence, and API scope. However, it does not mention the expected response (e.g., 204 No Content), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (company_id and request_id) with 100% coverage. The description merely restates that they are required, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema offers.

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 request, specifying the scope ('within a company') and the domain ('Resource Planning records'). It uses strong verbs like 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone,' making the purpose unmistakable.

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 instructs to 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Resource Planning records,' which provides a clear usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or offer alternative tools, relying on the sibling list for differentiation.

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