Delete Action Plan Verification Method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'permanently delete', 'cannot be undone', and 'permanently removes'. This adds emphasis beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether confirmation is required or what HTTP status indicates success. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's additional context is valuable but not exhaustive.

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 contains redundancy, repeating 'This cannot be undone' and 'Permanently removes' in close succession. It includes API endpoint details which are helpful but could be streamlined. The information is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the repetition wastes space.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the irreversible nature, required parameters, and API context. However, it does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., 204 No Content) or any prerequisites (e.g., user permissions). Siblings include many delete tools, so the resource specificity is good, but lacking output info leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'URL path parameter — unique identifier for the company'). The description merely lists them as required and notes they are URL path parameters, which adds minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'Action Plan Verification Method'. It specifies that it permanently deletes the specified Action Plans, distinguishing it from other delete tools by naming the specific resource. The inclusion of 'Required parameters: company_id, id' and the Procore API endpoint further clarify the scope.

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 explicitly states that this tool is for permanent deletion and cannot be undone, which implies when to use it. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for soft deletion or recovery, such as any restore or recycle bin tools among siblings. No direct comparison with alternatives is given.

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