Delete BIM Model Revision Plan

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

Annotations only state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical context: 'Permanently removes the BIM model revision plan. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also details failure payloads with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), which goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 action, then gives prerequisite steps, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence provides distinct value with no filler. The length is justified by the amount of safety-critical information for a destructive 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description fully covers what the agent needs: prerequisites, consequences (permanent deletion), error payloads, required parameters, and API location. It is safe to invoke after reading this description, as the agent knows exactly when to call it and what to expect on failure.

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 covers both params at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for id: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This goes beyond the schema's 'URL path parameter' label and helps the agent understand the relationship. project_id semantics are not expanded, but schema already describes it.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a BIM Model Revision Plan from the system.' The endpoint path (DELETE /rest/v1.0/bim_model_revision_plans/{id}) disambiguates from sibling delete tools such as delete_bim_model_revision and delete_bim_file. No vagueness, directly states the action.

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 explicit guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (only after confirming the id) and names the alternative tool types (show/list) for verification. It also covers error scenarios like 401/403/404, clarifying expected conditions.

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