Delete Company Inspection Template Item Reference

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

Even with annotations already marking destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds significant behavioral context: 'Permanently removes... This cannot be undone,' 'a repeat call returns 404,' and a specific breakdown of failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also discloses that company_id defaults from procore_set_config, which is beyond annotation coverage. 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 dense paragraph but every sentence adds value: purpose, confirmation guidance, default behavior, prerequisites, permanence, error mapping, and endpoint. It is longer than strictly necessary but not bloated, and the first sentence is 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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers prerequisites, irreversibility, repeated-call behavior, typical HTTP error codes, and the exact API endpoint. It also contextualizes the tool within the Procore API area. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic guidance (e.g., 'inspection_template_id, id must identify existing parent records') but also states 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' which contradicts the schema's required list. This discrepancy undermines the reliability of the added parameter info.

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 'Deletes a company inspection template item reference for the specified Procore company,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this company-scoped delete from project-scoped siblings like delete_project_inspection_template_item_reference, and includes the exact endpoint for unambiguity.

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 usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' It also mentions the company_id default from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the project-scoped equivalent or list/show tools, though the company scope is clear.

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