Delete Company File

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: 'This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses error handling — failures return error payloads with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings. This significantly exceeds what annotations provide, with no contradiction.

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 information-dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, default behavior, permanence, error codes, required params, and API endpoint. It is logically organized and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 two-parameter destructive delete tool with no output schema, this description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, defaults, irreversibility, repeated-call behavior, error scenarios, and API reference. 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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning by stating company_id defaults to the configured value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record to be resolved via list tools. This goes beyond the bare URL path parameter descriptions in 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 and resource: 'Deletes a company file for the specified Procore company.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_project_file or delete_company_folder by naming the exact resource and scope. The addition of 'Permanently removes the company file' reinforces the action without ambiguity.

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 procedural guidance: instructs the agent to confirm the target id with a show/list tool before calling, and explains the company_id default from procore_set_config. It implies appropriate contexts (when you have verified existence) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool. That keeps it from a 5.

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