Delete Company Action Plan Template Reference

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it states the operation is permanent, cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures carry HTTP status codes with common causes (401, 403, 404). This enriches the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them. No conflicts found with 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 longer than necessary but still readable. It front-loads the main purpose and includes safety-critical details. The instruction to confirm/resolve the id is repeated twice, which is redundant. The endpoint and API section are useful and appropriately placed.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers permanence, repeat-call behavior, common error responses, and parameter requirements. The only notable gap is the lack of detail on what a successful response looks like (e.g., 204 No Content). Otherwise, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke safely.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds helpful context by explaining 'id must identify an existing parent record' and the need to resolve it with a list tool. However, it also states 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while the schema marks company_id as required, creating a misleading contradiction. This offsets some of the added value.

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 verb ('Deletes'), the resource ('company action plan template reference'), and the scope ('for the specified Procore company'). It distinguishes from project-level alternatives by explicitly mentioning 'company'. This is a specific action that is unlikely to be confused with sibling tools.

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 clear preconditions: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool, and resolve missing ids with the list tool first. It implies the tool should be used after retrieval, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The contradictory note about company_id defaulting despite being required creates some confusion, but the core usage context is still helpful.

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