Delete Daily Construction Report Log

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explicitly states 'Permanently removes the daily construction report log,' 'cannot be undone,' and that a repeat call returns 404. It also discloses common error statuses (401, 403, 404), providing valuable behavioral context not present in annotations alone.

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 lengthy but every sentence contributes useful information, from confirmation guidance to error handling and endpoint details. The 'Required parameters' line is redundant with the schema but not wasteful. Structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple delete operation with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers prerequisites, permanence, error scenarios, and API endpoint. It does not state the success response format, but that is arguably unnecessary for a delete tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that id must identify an existing parent record, which goes beyond the schema's basic path parameter labels.

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 first sentence, 'Delete single Daily Construction Report Log,' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the operation. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling list/create/show/update tools by focusing on deletion of a single record.

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 by instructing to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and clarifies that project_id defaults to the configured value. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative write operations, but the workflow guidance is solid.

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