Delete Action Plan Verification Method

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), repeat-call behavior ('returns 404'), common error statuses (401, 403, 404), and the default behavior of company_id from procore_set_config. These details meaningfully extend the safety and failure-mode context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 primary purpose and safety warnings, and every sentence contributes useful information. It is somewhat long with the error-code enumeration and API reference, but these are relevant for correct invocation. Overall, it is well-structured and not wasteful.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (confirmation of id), irreversibility, default parameter behavior, error responses, and the exact endpoint. For a delete tool with no output schema, this provides a complete operational picture, including how to handle common 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds useful context for id ('must identify an existing parent record'). However, it contains an internal contradiction: it says company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' yet also marks it as a required parameter and lists it under 'Required parameters'. This conflicting guidance reduces the value of the added semantics.

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 action: 'Deletes an action plan verification method for the specified Procore company.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from sibling tools like create, show, list, and update 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?

It provides clear preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also warns that the operation is permanent and cannot be undone, setting context for when to use this destructive tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update or other alternatives.

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