Delete Action Plan Approver Signature

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral details: 'Permanently removes... This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains error payloads and common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), adding significant context about authentication, permissions, and id resolution. No contradictions with 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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by verification steps, default behavior, destruction warning, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence provides useful information, though it is slightly verbose and repeats 'Required parameters' from the schema. Still, it is concise enough for its complexity.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites (confirm and resolve ids), default parameter behavior, irreversibility, exact error semantics, and the API endpoint. The inclusion of the Procore API category and endpoint path gives the agent full contextual information for successful invocation.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about plan_approver_id needing to reference an existing parent record and the default behavior of project_id. However, the statement that project_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' contradicts the schema's required field declaration, creating confusion about whether the parameter is truly optional. This misleading addition offsets the otherwise useful extra meaning.

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 ('Deletes an action plan approver signature') and the resource scope ('in the specified Procore project'), using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from the many sibling delete tools. It also mentions the need to confirm the target id, which reinforces the tool's specific role.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'plan_approver_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains the default behavior of project_id via procore_set_config and gives clear failure scenarios, effectively guiding the agent on prerequisites and alternatives.

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