Delete Company Form Template

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

The description directly contradicts the idempotentHint annotation by stating 'a repeat call returns 404,' which means the operation is not idempotent. Per the scoring rules, any contradiction with annotations results in a score of 1. The additional failure-mode context does not overcome this 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 well-structured: purpose sentence, prerequisite guidance, behavior notes, failure modes, and endpoint/API details. Every sentence provides value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 covers prerequisites, default behavior, non-reversibility, failure codes (401, 403, 404), and the endpoint. It omits the success response, but for a delete operation that is minor. The idempotency contradiction is a quality issue, not a completeness gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that company_id can default to the procore_set_config value and that id must identify an existing record. However, the phrase 'Required parameters: id, company_id' conflicts with the stated default, creating mild ambiguity.

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 'Deletes a company form template for the specified Procore company' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_company_form_templates and restore_company_form_template by emphasizing permanent deletion.

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?

It instructs to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and explains that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted. This provides clear prerequisite guidance, though it does not explicitly name an alternative restoration tool.

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