Delete Budget Lock

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing irreversibility ('Permanently removes','This cannot be undone'), the consequence of repeat calls (404), and expected error payloads with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate side effects and error handling. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 densely packed but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, pre-call verification, default parameter behavior, irreversibility, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains readable. No wasted words.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, destructive action), the description is nearly complete. It covers error conditions, permissions, defaults, and the API reference. It does not specify the success response format, but for a delete operation this is typically empty; the focus on failure modes is appropriate for an agent.

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 already describes both parameters well. The description adds valuable context that the schema does not: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted. It also reaffirms project_id as required. This extra default information elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: 'Deletes a budget lock in the specified Procore project.' It also includes the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The title and description are aligned, and this clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_a_budget_lock.

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 provides clear operational guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and explains the project_id default. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for deleting a budget lock.

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