Delete Direct Cost Item

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses critical runtime behavior: it does not support concurrent requests (409 Conflict), it is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and it details common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the structured hints and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 with the primary action. However, there is redundancy: 'Confirm the target id' appears twice in different forms, and 'Permanently removes... This cannot be undone' repeats the same idea. It could be slightly trimmed without losing information.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what is deleted (item and line items), concurrency limitations, prerequisites, permanence, repeat behavior, common error codes, required parameters, and the exact API endpoint. This leaves minimal ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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%, but the description adds valuable meaning: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must refer to an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. It also states both are required, reinforcing the schema. This adds context beyond the raw parameter 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 opens with 'Delete a specific Direct Cost Item and its Line Items,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the delete operation, and further clarifies scope by noting it also deletes line items, differentiating from tools like delete_a_direct_cost_line_item.

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 clear usage context: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also states that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, which is important for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling options (e.g., when to use update_direct_cost_item instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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