Delete BIM Model Revision Viewpoint

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that the operation 'permanently removes' the viewpoint and cannot be undone. It explicitly explains the repeat-call behavior (404) and enumerates common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) with their causes. This adds substantial value beyond the annotation flags.

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 relatively long but information-dense, covering action, pre-conditions, consequences, error scenarios, and endpoint details. The opening sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences each add necessary operational detail. No filler or tautological repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides thorough guidance: required parameters, API location, endpoint, error handling, and repeat-call behavior. It covers operational prerequisites and failure modes comprehensively. The addition of the API endpoint and Procore section is useful for invocation context.

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?

Both parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds important semantic context for id, explaining it must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool. project_id is not given additional semantic depth, but the schema handles 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 'Deletes a BIM model revision viewpoint in Procore,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes the target from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_bim_model_revision, delete_bim_file) by specifying the exact viewpoint resource. This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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 instructs the agent to confirm the target id with a matching show or list tool first, creating a clear precondition and workflow. It also warns that the id must resolve to an existing parent record. While it doesn't name specific sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, the guidance is contextually sufficient for selecting this delete operation.

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