Delete Action Plan Test Record

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

It discloses that the record is permanently removed, cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404. It also lists common error statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings, adding valuable context beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations.

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 slightly long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, preconditions, default behavior, permanence, error handling, required params, API location. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, though the API endpoint line is somewhat redundant given the rest.

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, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to invoke it (prerequisites and parameter defaults), side effects, and failure modes. It is complete for an agent to select and execute 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id can default to the config value and that id must reference an existing parent record resolved via list tools. It does not describe value formats, but these are simple numeric IDs already documented 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 test record in the specified Procore project,' clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling list/show/create tools by its delete action and explicitly references the DELETE endpoint.

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 guidance to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and notes that id must resolve to an existing parent record. It also explains the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config, telling users when they can omit it.

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