Delete An Equipment (Deprecated)

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

While annotations already include destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description discloses key behavioral traits: permanent removal, non-reversibility, 404 on repeat calls, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains the project_id default and the requirement to resolve id via list tools, which goes far beyond the structured 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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: deprecation status, preconditions, permanent deletion, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the purpose and maintains focus without fluff.

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 deprecated destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, permanence, error scenarios, and the exact endpoint. It explains failure response formats and status codes, while the success response for DELETE is conventionally empty, so no further detail is needed.

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 schema already describes both parameters as URL path parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via list tool. It also confirms both are required.

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 'Deleting an equipment associated with the specified project,' clearly identifying the verb, resource (managed equipment), and scope. It also specifies the exact endpoint and API section, distinguishing it from other equipment-related deletion tools.

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 explicitly notes the deprecation and directs users to prefer a newer version via procore_search_endpoints, providing clear guidance on alternatives. It also instructs confirming the target id with a show or list tool before calling, which is critical for a destructive operation.

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