Delete Bid Form Section

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'Permanently removes the bid form section. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses error semantics (401/403/404) and mentions that failures return an error payload. This enriches the sparse annotation context without contradicting it.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence conveys necessary information: action, preconditions, default behavior, permanence, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundant or marketing fluff. The density is justified for a destructive multi-ID operation.

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's complexity (three IDs, destructive operation, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers ID resolution prerequisites, irreversibility, repeat-call behavior, common failure modes, and the exact API endpoint. There is no need for an output schema since the behavior on success/failure is adequately described.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted (though schema marks it required), and that bid_package_id and bid_form_section_id must identify existing parent records. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 'Delete single Bid Form Section,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_bid_form or delete_bid_form_item. It unambiguously states the action and target scope.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to resolve parent IDs with the matching list tool first. It also explains the project_id default from procore_set_config, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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