Delete Company Checklist Section

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint true, readOnly false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, repeat calls return 404, and error payloads carry HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also explains the company_id default behavior via procore_set_config. No contradiction 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 multi-sentence but every sentence contributes: action, prerequisites, default behavior, permanence, error handling, required params, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core delete intent. It is slightly verbose for a simple delete, but the extra details are relevant and not redundant.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what is deleted, how to resolve the target id, default company_id behavior, irreversibility, repeat call outcome, common error statuses, required parameters, API scope, and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described, but the description adds meaning: company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the matching list tool. This goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions and helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Deletes a Checklist Section for a specified Company.' It clearly distinguishes the delete action and references matching show/list tools to confirm the target id, differentiating it from read/update operations. The required parameters are explicitly listed, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: confirm the target id with the show/list tool, resolve id against an existing parent record, and be aware that company_id defaults to procore_set_config. It warns about permanence and repeat call behavior. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools for update or create, only the matching show/list tools, so it stops short of a 'when not to use' statement.

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