Delete Company Vendor Insurance

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and common failure modes are mapped to HTTP status codes (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id). This fully prepares the agent for side effects and error handling, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 long but efficiently structured: it leads with the core action, then preconditions, permanence, failure modes, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence contributes, though the length is slightly higher than necessary for a simple delete operation.

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 description is complete: it covers prerequisites (resolve ids), irreversibility, repeat-call behavior, error statuses, required parameters, and the exact REST endpoint. An agent has all necessary information to execute the deletion correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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% with each URL path parameter documented. The description adds useful meaning by noting company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that vendor_id/id must correspond to existing parent records. However, the claim that company_id can be omitted contradicts the schema which lists it as required, and the description itself later says 'Required parameters: company_id, vendor_id, id' — an internal inconsistency that reduces clarity.

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 'Delete the specified Company Vendor Insurance' — a specific verb and resource that immediately identifies the action. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_company_insurance and update_company_vendor_insurance by naming the company/vendor scope and providing the exact endpoint path.

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 clear preconditions: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool, and resolve vendor_id/id with the matching list tool first. It also explains the default behavior of company_id via procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative delete tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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