Delete Context By ID

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

Even with annotations already marking destructiveHint=true, the description adds essential behavioral context: 'Permanently removes the context. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses error payload patterns (401, 403, 404) and the config default behavior, which annotations do not cover.

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 every sentence earns its place: core action, prerequisite verification, data-scoping defaults, permanence/irreversibility, error behavior, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the successful return behavior, but it only details failure payloads and the 404 on repeat calls. It also omits a direct explanation of skip_resource_deletion in the body text, though the schema covers it. Otherwise, it thoroughly covers prerequisites, defaults, and destructive consequences.

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 value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on skip_resource_deletion beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 a context and all its associated layers, groups, and markups using context ID,' which clearly states the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_context_by_query_parameters by specifying the ID-based deletion and the full cascade behavior.

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 provides explicit prerequisites: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also notes the default behavior for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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