Delete An Inspection Item Attachment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Permanently removes... cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also details failure modes (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id), which goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 carries useful information: purpose, confirmation steps, default behavior, permanence, error scenarios, required parameters, and the endpoint. Slight redundancy ('Permanently removes' and 'cannot be undone') but overall well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 destructive delete tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, how to resolve IDs, what errors to expect, and the exact REST endpoint. No significant gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke it.

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% (all three params documented with descriptions and required). The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id can default to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and clarifies that inspection_id and id must resolve existing parent records. This adds context beyond the schema's basic URL path parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Removes the Attachment for a specified Inspection Item on a given Project.' It also clearly states the permanent nature of the action and the exact API endpoint, distinguishing this tool from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_checklist_inspections_item_attachment, delete_attachment_project) by naming the inspection item attachment 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' It explains when to use the tool and prerequisite steps, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion. Clear context is present.

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