Delete Delay Log

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: 'Permanently removes', 'This cannot be undone', 'a repeat call returns 404', and the nature of error payloads. This is significant added context that completely informs the agent of the tool's safety profile and consequence of use. No contradiction with annotations; it clarifies the idempotentHint by noting the 404 on repeat.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, prerequisite, default behavior, permanence, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence carries distinct, useful information without fluff. Despite being longer than some, every sentence earns its place, and the structure guides the reader logically from what to how.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers all important aspects: what it deletes, preconditions, default project_id, irreversibility, repeat call behavior, common failures, required parameters, and the exact API endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and handle expected errors without further research.

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 both parameters described as URL path parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record—resolve it with the matching list tool first. This extra guidance on parameter behavior and validation improves usability beyond raw schema definitions.

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 single Delay Log', which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_delay_logs, show_delay_logs, and update_delay_log by explicitly saying 'single' and 'Delete'. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and repeats 'resolve it with the matching list tool first', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the default behavior for project_id via procore_set_config and outlines common error conditions (401, 403, 404), all of which help the agent decide when and how to use the tool safely.

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