Delete Action Plan Section

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing permanence ('cannot be undone'), the repeat-call 404 behavior, and the likely error status codes (401, 403, 404). This adds valuable context to the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. Slight deduction for the confusing statement about project_id defaulting when the schema marks it required.

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 purpose and then covers safety, parameters, and errors in a logical order. It is somewhat longer than necessary due to repeating 'Required parameters' and including the Procore API category, but each sentence carries relevant information.

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 simple delete tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is quite complete. It covers how to obtain the id, the default for project_id, irreversibility, repeat behavior, and error handling. The only significant gap is the inconsistency between the stated default and the required schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful context (id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool), but it largely repeats the parameter list. The claimed default behavior for project_id conflicts with the required schema, reducing its added value.

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 specific action ('Deletes an action plan section') and the context ('in the specified Procore project'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the resource type and includes the explicit HTTP endpoint, 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?

It provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: to delete an action plan section, and it instructs to confirm the target id with a show or list tool before calling. It also explains the project_id default from config, giving good usage context, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative deletion tools.

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