Delete Company Checklist Template

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: permanence ('cannot be undone'), non-obvious repeated-call outcome ('a repeat call returns 404'), and error payload details with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also notes the config default for company_id. While annotations already mark it destructive and idempotent, the description adds concrete context about consequences and failure modes.

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 relatively well-structured: it opens with the action, gives preconditions, explains consequences, provides error handling, and ends with API reference. Each sentence adds substantive information, though the contradictory default statement and repeated 'Required parameters' are redundant and could be streamlined. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: prerequisite resolution of id, default company_id behavior, permanence, repeat-call outcome, and common error responses. The main gap is the contradiction regarding company_id's optionality, which could confuse an agent. Still, it is more complete than typical descriptions for this tool class.

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 both parameters with descriptions, but the tool description introduces a contradiction: it says 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and later lists 'Required parameters: company_id, id', conflicting with the schema's required array. This misleading default claim undermines the otherwise clear guidance that id must be resolved via list tools. The addition about resolving id is useful, but the inconsistency hurts reliability.

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 and resource: 'Deletes a company checklist template for the specified Procore company.' It also includes the exact API endpoint and path, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The word 'company' differentiates it from project-level checklist template tools like delete_project_checklist_template.

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 gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains that company_id defaults to a configured value, which helps the agent decide when to provide it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative delete tools (e.g., project-level), though the naming and context make the intended use clear.

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