Delete A Time And Material Notification

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, repeat calls return 404, and failures return error payloads with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This provides rich behavioral context about consequences and error handling that annotations do not cover.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: it covers the prerequisite verification, parameter default, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error handling, and API reference. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It addresses what the tool does, how to prepare (confirm id), default parameter behavior, consequences (permanent, 404 on repeat), and potential error conditions. This is more than sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already documents project_id as a URL path parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by stating that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not apparent from the schema and helps agents understand optional invocation patterns.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Deleting' and the resource 'Time And Material Notification' scoped to the specified project, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, show, update, or list. The endpoint is also provided, reinforcing the specific action and resource.

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 clear guidance to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, which establishes a usage prerequisite and directs the agent to alternative tools for verification. It also explains the default behavior of project_id using procore_set_config, adding contextual usage information, though it does not explicitly compare with update or other alternatives.

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