Delete Action Plan Template Receiver

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical context: 'Permanently removes... This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses error payload behavior and common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the structured hints and provides a clear picture of consequences and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint aligns with the repeat-call-404 behavior.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: action, prerequisites, permanence, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slight redundancy exists (e.g., 'Required parameters: project_id, id' duplicates the schema), but overall it is well-organized and not excessively verbose.

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 no output schema and strong annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what is deleted, how to identify the correct record, side effects (permanent, 404 on repeat), project_id defaulting, common error statuses, and the API endpoint. There is no output schema to document, so nothing is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by mentioning that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. It also restates required parameters, which is redundant but consistent. The added defaulting and resolution guidance elevate it above baseline.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Deletes') and a precise resource ('action plan template receiver') scoped to a Procore project. It also restates the action as 'Permanently removes', which reinforces the destructive intent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, show, list, or bulk_destroy for the same resource.

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 gives explicit pre-conditions: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It also notes that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling bulk_destroy_action_plan_template_receivers for multi-deletion scenarios.

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