Delete Company Folder

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: it 'Permanently removes' the folder, 'cannot be undone', a 'repeat call returns 404', and describes the error payload with HTTP statuses. It also notes the default behavior for company_id. These details give the agent a clear understanding of consequences and failure modes, exceeding what annotations alone provide. 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the primary action and then packs in prerequisite info, defaults, error handling, and endpoint details. Every sentence adds useful information, though the recycle-bin versus permanent-removal wording creates slight redundancy/confusion. Structurally it is organized, starting with the core action and ending with endpoint context.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the prerequisite to confirm/resolve the id, the default company_id behavior, the irreversibility and 404 on repeat, and common error statuses. It even names the API section and full endpoint. This gives an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds valuable semantics: company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and id must be an 'existing parent record' that should be resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions, which simply label the parameters as URL path identifiers.

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: 'Delete the specified Folder by moving it to the recycle bin.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying 'company folder' and providing the exact endpoint for company-level folders. However, the description also says 'Permanently removes the company folder. This cannot be undone,' which conflicts with the notion of moving to a recycle bin, creating slight ambiguity about the actual delete semantics.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains the company_id default from procore_set_config and lists common error statuses (401, 403, 404). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative delete tools, the prerequisites and error-handling context are strong.

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