Delete Checklist Signature Request

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses critical behavior: 'Permanently removes... This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also documents common failure modes with status codes: '401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, 404 when an id does not resolve.' This is substantial value-add over the structured 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 detailed (8 sentences) but each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, preconditions, permanence, error handling, required parameters, and API context. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler, though it does briefly repeat the required parameters already listed in the schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers what the tool does, how to prepare (confirm/resolve IDs), the permanent consequences, repeated-call behavior, common error responses, required parameters, and the exact Procore API endpoint. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds important relational semantics: 'list_id, id must identify existing parent records' and instructs to resolve them with the matching list tool first. This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions, though the schema already carries the 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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a Signature Request for a specified Checklist.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_checklist_signature or show_checklist_signature_request by explicitly naming 'Signature Request' and providing the exact endpoint.

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?

It gives actionable preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'list_id, id must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first.' This clearly tells the agent what to do before invoking the tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with deletion of signatures vs. signature requests.

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