Delete Accident Log

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

Builds substantially on the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that the action cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures carry an error payload with HTTP statuses (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolved id). This gives the agent critical expectations beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then organizes prerequisites, consequences, and error handling in a logical flow. It is slightly redundant, repeating the resolve-with-list guidance twice, and the 'Required parameters' line duplicates the schema, but the extra detail for a destructive tool earns its place.

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 is complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, default behavior, irreversibility, and error response patterns. The endpoint and API area are also provided. No critical missing context is apparent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the configured project when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record, to be resolved via the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's simple identifier descriptions, though the 'Required parameters' sentence merely restates 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 opens with 'Delete single Accident Log', a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the tool by emphasizing 'single' and the need to resolve the target id with show/list tools. It clearly defines the operation as permanent removal, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve id as an existing parent record first. It also notes the project_id default from procore_set_config. However, it does not contrast with non-destructive alternatives like update_accident_log, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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