Delete Contract Compliance Document

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), repeat-call behavior ('a repeat call returns 404'), parameter defaults from procore_set_config, and common error payloads (401/403/404) with their meanings. This is rich behavioral context 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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides dense, useful detail. It is somewhat long and contains redundant 'Required parameters' listing and an awkward double-asterisk formatting, but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 4-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, parameter resolution, defaults, error handling, and endpoint. It is nearly complete, but the contradiction between 'defaults when omitted' and 'Required parameters' introduces ambiguity that prevents a perfect score.

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 meaning by explaining that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and that contract_id and id must reference existing parent records resolved via list tools. However, it introduces inconsistency by listing all four parameters as 'Required' while also claiming defaults for two of them, which may confuse an agent.

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 'Deletes a contract compliance document' and reiterates 'Permanently removes', giving a specific verb and resource. It includes the exact DELETE endpoint, which distinguishes this from related compliance document tools (list, show, update) by action and target.

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 clear prerequisites: 'Procore Pay must be enabled', 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling', and 'contract_id, id must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first'. It warns that deletion cannot be undone, implying it should only be used when deletion is intended. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when deletion is not the goal.

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