Delete Checklist Schedule

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

Even though destructiveHint: true already flags this as destructive, the description goes further by stating 'Permanently removes the checklist schedule. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains failure modes and HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 fairly long but information-dense. It front-loads the primary action, then covers usage preconditions, behavioral consequences, error handling, parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy, though a slightly shorter form could be equally effective.

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 destructive nature, two parameters, and no output schema, the description provides complete context: how to confirm the id, the default for project_id, irreversibility, repeat-call behavior, error scenarios with status codes, and the exact API endpoint. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool safely and 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 provides descriptions for both parameters (id and project_id), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds extra meaning by noting that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 Checklist Schedule in a specified Project,' naming the exact verb, resource, and scope. It also specifies the API endpoint and module, and the tool name itself (delete_checklist_schedule) reinforces the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_checklist_schedule or update_a_checklist_inspection_schedule.

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 the id with the matching list tool first. It also explains the project_id default behavior (from procore_set_config). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the precondition is clear enough for correct usage.

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