Delete Asset

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses permanent removal, cascade conflict handling with HTTP 409 and a response body listing descendants, repeat-call behavior returning 404, and common auth error codes (401/403/404). This is rich, actionable context beyond structured fields.

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 contributes necessary operational detail. It leads with the primary action, then cascades through caveats, preconditions, errors, and required parameters. There's minor redundancy in restating required parameters near the end, but the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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 tool has no output schema, the description remarkably covers preconditions (confirm/resolve IDs), error responses (409 with descendant list, 401/403/404), defaults, and permanent-deletion consequences. The only notable gap is it does not describe what a successful response looks like, but for a DELETE endpoint this is often empty, and the description is otherwise thorough.

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% and each parameter has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, that asset_id must reference an existing parent record, and by clarifying the cascade parameter's semantics with a concrete failure mode.

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 'Deletes a project asset and all its associated attachments, related items and change history.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes the tool from sibling delete tools by scoping to project assets and describing cascade behavior.

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 tells the agent to confirm the target id with a show/list tool before calling and to resolve asset_id with the matching list tool first. It also explains the cascade requirement when descendants exist. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_asset_company, but the 'project asset' scope implies the alternative.

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