Delete Configurable Field Set

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses permanence ('cannot be undone'), repeat call behavior (404), likely error statuses (401, 403, 404), and the default company_id resolution. This is rich behavioral information that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, effects, error handling, and API reference. It is slightly repetitive (mentioning the list tool twice) and includes a redundant 'Required parameters' line, but every sentence generally earns its place.

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, the description covers prerequisites, irreversibility, default behavior, error patterns, and endpoint details. It does not describe the success response body, but for a delete endpoint this is typically not essential. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must reference an existing parent record. However, the default statement slightly conflicts with 'Required parameters' at the end, introducing minor ambiguity.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a configurable field set for the specified Procore company.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_configurable_field_sets, show_configurable_field_set, and update_configurable_field_set.

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 show/list tools before calling and to resolve the id with the matching list tool, providing clear prerequisite steps. It states the default behavior for company_id and the endpoint context, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative deletion methods 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.