Delete Checklist Schedule Attachment

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing permanence ('Permanently removes... cannot be undone'), idempotency implications ('repeat call returns 404'), and error handling ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401... 403... 404'). This enriches the destructiveHint annotation with concrete behavioral details.

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 but well-organized, covering action, prerequisites, side effects, errors, required parameters, and API path. It earns its length with valuable details, though it is slightly repetitive with 'Required parameters' when the schema already indicates required fields.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what it does, how to prepare (resolve IDs), side effects (permanent, repeat returns 404), error semantics with common HTTP statuses, and the exact endpoint. This gives an agent all necessary context 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented. The description adds minimal extra context, such as project_id defaulting to procore_set_config when omitted, but this conflicts with the schema's 'required' designation. Since the schema already describes parameters clearly, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete the attachment pertaining to the Checklist Schedule Attachment.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint path further clarifies the exact operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_checklist_schedule_attachment.

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 explicit usage guidance: confirm the target ID with 'the matching show or list tool before calling,' and resolve schedule_id and id with list tools. It also explains project_id defaults, giving clear context on when to call. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the prerequisites are well stated.

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