Delete Contributing Behavior

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and that a repeat call returns 404. It also describes common failure modes (401, 403, 404) and what they indicate. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 somewhat long but each sentence contributes meaningful guidance: purpose, caveat, prerequisites, defaults, permanence, error patterns, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds context. Slightly verbose but well-organized.

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 single-resource delete with no output schema, the description covers preconditions (confirm/resolve id), default behavior, irreversibility, idempotent repeat behavior, common error responses, required parameters, API domain, and endpoint. No significant information gap remains for an agent to invoke this 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% and each parameter has a descriptive schema entry. The description adds extra value by specifying that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record. The schema already notes the id is returned in List/Show responses, but the default behavior is new information.

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 Contributing Behavior,' a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the deletion action and adds a key nuance that Procore-provided behaviors cannot be deleted. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from create/show/update/list siblings.

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 explicit guidance to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve the id with the list tool first. It clearly states when not to use the tool (Procore-provided behaviors cannot be deleted) and gives context about company_id defaulting to procore_set_config. This satisfies explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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