Delete Billing Period

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

Discloses permanent deletion, irreversibility, repeated-call 404 behavior, and expected error payloads (401/403/404). These details go well beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and provide concrete failure scenarios an agent needs to handle.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides useful usage and error details. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence serves a purpose; the endpoint repetition and required-parameter listing are redundant with the schema but not harmful.

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?

Covers prerequisites, default behavior, permanence, idempotency effects, and common failure statuses. However, the misleading 'parent record' wording for id could lead an agent astray, so complete contextual reliability is slightly compromised.

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 already covers both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and resolves id via list tools, but the phrase 'id must identify an existing parent record' is confusing and likely incorrect for a billing period id, which slightly detracts from the semantic value.

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 begins with 'Delete a specified Billing Period' — a clear verb+resource statement. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list, create, or show billing periods. The scope and resource are unambiguous.

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 instructs to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus its alternatives, including a necessary precondition.

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