Delete Calendar Item

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating that the deletion is permanent and 'cannot be undone', that a repeat call returns 404, and that failures return an error payload with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also clarifies that id must reference an existing record and that project_id defaults to the configured value. This is detailed, practical behavioral disclosure.

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 dense yet logically structured: it front-loads the primary action, then covers preconditions, permanence, error behavior, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it is longer than strictly necessary for a simple delete 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers critical operational details: how to resolve ids, default behavior, permanence, repeat-call behavior, and error scenarios (401/403/404). It does not specify the success response format, but the endpoint and DELETE semantics make it reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (id and project_id) with clear descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and id needing to resolve to an existing record, which is helpful. However, it simultaneously lists 'Required parameters: project_id, id' while stating project_id defaults when omitted, creating confusion about whether project_id is actually required.

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 a single Calendar Item', a specific verb+resource statement that unambiguously identifies the action and target. It also includes the exact API endpoint (DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/calendar_items/{id}), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_calendar_item, show_calendar_item, and update_calendar_item.

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 it with the matching list tool first', providing clear procedural guidance for safe usage. It also notes the project_id default from procore_set_config, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives outside the show/list tools.

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