Delete A Time And Material Attachment

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and errors come back as payloads with HTTP statuses (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolved id). This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's side effects and error behavior.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisite steps, consequences, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence adds necessary information without filler or redundancy, making it appropriately detailed for a destructive operation.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the specific action, how to obtain valid IDs, the permanent effect, error response structure, configuration defaults, and the exact endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to execute the tool correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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?

While the schema already documents both required parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds valuable semantics: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must refer to an existing parent record. These details are not in the schema and help the agent prepare valid inputs.

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 action: 'Deleting a Time and Material Attachment from a specified Project.' This is a specific verb + resource, and it includes the exact API endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from other delete tools by naming the precise resource type.

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?

Provides explicit instructions to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve the id with a list tool first. Also notes the project_id defaulting behavior from procore_set_config. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use the tool, the destructive nature and prerequisite steps offer strong usage context.

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