Delete Contributing Condition

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures return specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotations and provides critical operational context.

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 longer than ideal, but every sentence contributes useful information: the exclusion, prerequisite, default behavior, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error handling, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains focused.

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, restrictions, consequences, error scenarios, and parameter defaults. It lacks an explicit success-response description, but for a DELETE operation the outcome is largely self-evident, so this is a minor gap.

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 descriptions for both company_id and id. The description adds extra value by explaining that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via list/show. This enriches the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Deletes a Contributing Condition.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list, show, create, and update by focusing on deletion, and adds a specific constraint that Procore-provided conditions cannot be deleted.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to delete a contributing condition, with prerequisites like confirming the target id via show/list. It also notes a limitation (Procore-provided cannot be deleted) but does not explicitly list alternative tools for other operations.

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