Delete Company Naming Standard Rule

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness, but the description adds crucial specifics: permanence, irreversibility, repeat call returns 404, and error payload details for 401/403/404. It also discloses the company_id default behavior, going well beyond annotation hints.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes endpoint, required parameters, and error semantics. Slight redundancy in stating permanence twice ('Permanently removes' and 'cannot be undone') but overall every sentence contributes.

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, this is highly complete: it covers purpose, usage prerequisites, failure modes, parameter defaults, and the exact API endpoint. The absence of success response details is acceptable for a delete operation.

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 useful context about company_id defaulting from procore_set_config and rule_id needing to be an existing parent record, but it contradicts itself by calling company_id required after stating it defaults when omitted. No added semantics for Accept-Language.

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 verb ('Deletes'), the resource ('company naming standard rule'), and the scope ('for the specified Procore company'). The endpoint path further confirms the exact operation, distinguishing it from project-level rules and create/update counterparts.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the target id with the matching show/list tool and to resolve rule_id with the matching list tool first. This provides clear prerequisite guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., update) or state when not to use.

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