Delete A Time And Material Entry

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete consequences: 'Permanently removes... cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also details failure modes (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolved id) and indicates errors come as an HTTP payload. This goes beyond the annotation's information.

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 about 100 words and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Confirm the target id' and 'id must identify an existing parent record' convey similar guidance; 'Permanently removes' and 'This cannot be undone' are repetitive), but every sentence contributes necessary safety or context 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?

The description thoroughly covers destructive consequences, error scenarios, parameter defaults, and the API endpoint. However, with no output schema, it omits what a successful deletion returns (e.g., 200/204 or a deleted entity), which would help an agent verify the outcome. This is a minor gap for a delete 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the two required parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record that should be resolved via a list tool. This enriches the bare 'URL path parameter' descriptions in 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 verb ('Deleting'), the resource ('Time And Material Entry'), and the scope ('associated with the specified project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list/show/update tools by specifying the delete action. It also reinforces the purpose with a precondition to confirm the target id.

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 gives explicit guidance to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve the id with the matching list tool. It also clarifies the default behavior of project_id when omitted. However, it does not name alternatives like restore_a_time_and_material_entry, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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