Delete Action Plan Item Assignee

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the permanent nature ('Permanently removes... This cannot be undone'), the repeat-call outcome ('a repeat call returns 404'), and specific HTTP error scenarios ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This aligns with destructiveHint but adds useful context.

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 information-dense and well-structured, with each sentence providing essential details. However, it includes API reference lines ('Procore API: Project Management > Action Plans. Endpoint: ...') that, while useful, add some verbosity and could be considered optional.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers prerequisites, consequences, error handling, and the exact API endpoint. No output schema exists, but the description fully compensates by explaining expected failures and behavior, making it complete for the given complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must reference an existing parent record. This extra guidance elevates the score.

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 starts with 'Deletes an action plan item assignee in the specified Procore project,' which is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It distinguishes this tool's purpose from any sibling tools by explicitly naming the resource type and operation.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also clarifies the project_id default and the requirement to resolve the id before invoking.

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