Delete Actual Production Quantity

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying permanent removal ('This cannot be undone'), repeat call behavior ('a repeat call returns 404'), and detailed error handling ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). It also discloses the project_id default from procore_set_config, which is not in the 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 moderately concise and well-structured, starting with the core action, then prerequisites, defaults, consequences, and error handling. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrases like 'Required parameters' since the schema already marks them as required.

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 is complete for a delete operation. It covers what it does, how to prepare (verify id with show/list), default behavior for project_id, permanence, repeat call result, error codes, and the exact API endpoint. No output schema is needed for a DELETE operation, so the description sufficiently covers all necessary context.

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?

While the input schema already describes both parameters as URL path identifiers, the description adds valuable meaning: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved with the matching list tool. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions, earning a 4.

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 actual production quantity in the specified Procore project.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly using the delete verb and referencing the specific resource, and it includes the endpoint URI.

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 provides clear usage context: it instructs the user to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to resolve id with the matching list tool first. It also warns that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or list alternative approaches for modifying instead of deleting, so it falls short of a 5.

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