Delete Company Currency Configuration

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

The description goes well beyond annotations: it discloses the 200 response body content, post-deletion effects on GETs, the 404 on repeat calls, and error status semantics (401, 403, 404). It also emphasizes permanence and irreversibility, which enriches the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 lengthy but well-structured: it opens with the action, then response behavior, side effects, error handling, parameter defaulting, and API reference. A few phrases (e.g., 'Required parameters: company_id') are redundant with the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description is remarkably complete for a simple delete tool: it explains the success response, the post-deletion state, 404/repeat-call behavior, auth failure modes, parameter defaulting, and the REST endpoint. With only one parameter and rich annotations, there are no significant gaps.

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 already covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage), but the description adds a valuable defaulting rule (company_id falls back to procore_set_config), providing extra semantic context beyond the schema.

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 ('Deletes') and resource ('the company's currency configuration'), and reinforces with 'Permanently removes'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools for creating, updating, and getting the company currency configuration.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: confirms the target id with show/list tools before calling, notes the 404 error if no configuration exists, and explains the default company_id behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but gives sufficient situational context for correct selection.

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