Delete Company-Level Context By ID

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds critical behavioral details: permanent removal that cannot be undone, repeat calls return 404, the deletion cascades to layers/groups/markups, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This significantly exceeds annotation-only information.

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 dense and well-structured, front-loading the action and then covering usage, behavior, errors, and endpoint. However, there is minor redundancy in the advice to confirm/resolve the context id, and 'Required parameters' repeats schema information, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 delete with no output schema, the description fully covers what is deleted, irreversibility, idempotency, failure modes, parameter defaults, and the HTTP endpoint. It leaves no operational gaps for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id can be omitted due to configuration default and that context_id must identify an existing record. It does not elaborate on skip_resource_deletion beyond the schema, but the added context for the two required params justifies a 4.

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 tool deletes a company-level context and all its associated layers, groups, and markups, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_context_by_id by emphasizing the company-level scope and the cascading deletion of related entities.

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 provides explicit pre-call guidance: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool, and resolve context_id via a list tool first. It also notes company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value. However, it does not explicitly name alternative delete tools or state when not to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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