Delete An RFI Response

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial details: the deletion is permanent and irreversible, a repeat call returns 404, and failure modes include 401/403/404 with HTTP status payloads. Also discloses the project_id default behavior. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of consequences and error handling, with no contradiction to 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 a well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core action, then covers prerequisites, irreversibility, error codes, and endpoint. Some redundancy exists between the first sentence and 'Permanently removes the RFI response,' and 'Required parameters' repeats schema info, but overall it is appropriately sized and scannable.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, preconditions (id resolution), default parameter behavior, irreversibility, repeat-call outcome, common error statuses, and endpoint reference. This matches or exceeds the completeness of the high-scoring calibration example.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that rfi_id and id must reference existing parent records and advising to resolve them first. It also mentions project_id defaulting to procore_set_config, which is useful context—though this slightly conflicts with the schema marking project_id as required, preventing a 5.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deletes') and states the exact resource scope: a response associated with a specified RFI and Project. 'Permanently removes the RFI response' reinforces the action, and the endpoint clarification removes any ambiguity with sibling delete tools like 'delete_a_response'.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: before calling, confirm/resolve ids with the matching show/list tool, and explains that project_id defaults from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for scenarios like updating instead of deleting, so it's not a full 5.

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