Delete A Single Project

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: permanent removal, irreversibility, repeat call returning 404, and common HTTP error payloads (401, 403, 404). This significantly exceeds what annotations alone provide and prepares the agent for real-world outcomes.

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 dense but every sentence carries value: action, confirmation, safety prerequisite, defaults, permanence, repeat behavior, error handling, and API reference. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 fully covers what the agent needs: how to invoke, what to verify, what happens on success (ID returned), what happens on repeated calls, and how failures manifest. The endpoint and API reference add completeness for debugging and integration.

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 descriptions for both company_id and project_id. The description adds value by stating that these parameters default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and explicitly lists them as required. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 begins with 'Delete a single project given a company ID and project ID,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_company_role or delete_bim_file. It also mentions the confirmation ID returned on success, adding further clarity.

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 clear usage context including the prerequisite to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and explains default parameter behavior via procore_set_config. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the safety instruction and error handling guidance are strong enough for an agent to know when and how to use it.

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