Delete Company Logo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds critical context: permanent removal, repeat calls returning 404, and specific error statuses (401, 403, 404) with their causes. This goes well beyond the 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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value: purpose, precondition, default behavior, permanence, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action. A slightly tighter structure could integrate related points, but it remains well-organized.

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 single-parameter delete tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and error behavior. It does not state what a successful response looks like (e.g., 204 No Content), but failures are well-documented and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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% and the schema describes company_id as a URL path parameter. The description adds the default behavior from procore_set_config, which is valuable context not present in the schema. Minor inconsistency: schema says required, but description implies it can be omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('company logo'), clearly distinguishing it from project logo tools. The endpoint and scope ('for the specified Procore company') make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: confirm the target id with show/list tools before calling, and notes the default company_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., update_companys_logo) for when to choose deletion over modification.

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