Delete An Project Equipment Log (Deprecated)

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'Permanently removes the project equipment log. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses common error payloads (401/403/404) and deprecation removal date. The annotations and description are consistent.

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 thorough and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by deprecation and usage guidance. Every sentence carries necessary information (state permanence, error handling, defaults, endpoint). Slightly long but no fluff; succinct given the complexity.

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?

Given the destructive and deprecated nature, the description covers all essential context: purpose, deprecation, alternative, parameter defaults, id resolution, permanent effect, repeat call behavior, error handling, and API endpoint. No output schema is needed for a delete operation, and failure modes are fully explained.

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 already covers both parameters (project_id, id) fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This enriches the schema 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 immediately states 'Deletes a project equipment log in the specified Procore project' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes this from sibling tools by including the exact endpoint and resource path, and the deprecation notice clarifies context.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'procore has deprecated this endpoint... prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' Also advises confirming the target id with a show/list tool before calling, and notes the default behavior of project_id.

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