Delete Drawing Upload

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: permanent removal, irreversibility, a repeat call returning 404, and HTTP error status meanings (401 token expired, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id). This goes well beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a clear model 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff, but it repeats the 'resolve with list tool' idea twice ('Confirm... with matching show or list tool' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first'). Still, every other sentence contributes meaningful operational detail, so it's efficient overall.

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 delete tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites, default behavior, irreversibility, repeat-call semantics, error payloads, and permission issues. The API endpoint and resource location are also provided, leaving no significant operational 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must resolve to an existing parent record. However, it doesn't clarify the 'view' parameter beyond the schema, and 'Required parameters: id, project_id' merely echoes the schema.

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 an unreviewed Drawing Upload,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_drawing_uploads or create_drawing_upload. The qualifier 'unreviewed' adds precision not present in the title or schema.

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 the need to resolve the id with a list tool. It also explains the project_id default from procore_set_config, giving clear conditions for correct invocation and prerequisites.

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