Delete Action Plan Item Assignee Signature

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

Beyond the annotations already marking this destructive and read-only false, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures return HTTP status payloads (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotation defaults and helps the agent understand side effects and error handling.

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 somewhat long but well-structured and front-loaded with the action statement. Every sentence adds value, including the endpoint path and error behavior. It could be slightly tightened by moving the endpoint to the end, but overall it is efficient and not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, default parameter behavior, error statuses, and the API endpoint, making it quite complete for a delete operation. It does not mention the success response format, but that is typically trivial for deletes, and the error details are sufficient for an agent to handle failures.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches both parameters: it explains that project_id defaults to the configured project when omitted, and that plan_item_assignee_id must correspond to an existing parent record to be resolved via the list tool. This is critical operational knowledge not present 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 opens with 'Deletes an action plan item assignee signature in the specified Procore project,' which clearly identifies the verb (deletes), resource (action plan item assignee signature), and scope (specified Procore project). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools by its delete verb and resource naming.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to confirm the target id with a matching show or list tool and to resolve plan_item_assignee_id before calling. This gives clear context on prerequisites and the need to avoid incorrect deletes, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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