Delete Action Plan Reference

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses permanence ('cannot be undone'), idempotent behavior ('repeat call returns 404'), and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds relevant detail, including prerequisites, error behavior, and endpoint. It is well-structured, though slightly dense; a small trim would improve conciseness.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error statuses, default parameter behavior, and API endpoint. This is comprehensive context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description introduces a contradiction: it states 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while the input schema marks project_id as required, and the description itself lists it under 'Required parameters'. This conflicting guidance undermines parameter clarity despite 100% schema coverage.

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 reference in the specified Procore project,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the delete operation from sibling create/show/list tools for action plan references.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve the id with the list tool first. This gives clear usage context for a destructive operation, 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.