Delete Department

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: 'Permanently removes the department. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains error payloads and common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), giving the agent a realistic expectation of failure modes. This goes well beyond the 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 about 100 words and every sentence carries substantive information — deletion, id verification, permanence, error handling, required params, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action. It is slightly dense but not bloated, and the structure is logical.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, preconditions, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error payloads and common statuses, required parameters, and the exact API endpoint. No significant gaps remain.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the id parameter: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explicitly lists required parameters, though that duplicates the schema. The added id resolution guidance justifies a 4.

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 department in Procore,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from the many sibling delete tools by naming the exact resource (department) and even provides the API endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It mentions the matching show/list as alternatives but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. However, for a destructive delete operation, this guidance is sufficient and clear.

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