Delete Checklist Section (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-read-only), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the action is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures return an error payload with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This significantly enhances understanding of the tool's side effects and error handling.

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, front-loading the critical deprecation warning and following with prerequisites, effects, error behavior, and API location. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse the key information without excess verbosity.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, that it's deprecated, how to find alternatives, prerequisites, permanence, repeat behavior, error handling, required parameters, API category, and endpoint. It is complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds valuable semantics by stating that list_id and id must reference existing parent records, and it shows the URL path structure. This goes beyond the schema's basic field types, though it doesn't elaborate on each parameter further.

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 'Permanently removes the checklist section,' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by flagging the endpoint as deprecated and directing users to newer versions and to procore_search_endpoints.

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer a newer version, use procore_search_endpoints to find it, and confirm target IDs with matching show or list tools. It also explains prerequisites (list_id, id must identify existing parent records) and gives common error scenarios, making it clear when and how to use the tool.

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