Delete Equipment (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description reveals key behavioral traits: it permanently deletes, cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404. It also details failure modes with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and explains the company_id default from procore_set_config. This provides rich context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense with valuable information but is well-structured, starting with the core action, then deprecation, prerequisites, and failure details. It is slightly redundant with two separate statements about confirming/resolving the id, which is the only minor inefficiency. Overall, every sentence earns its place given the complexity of the deprecated endpoint.

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?

The description covers all necessary context: it states the purpose, deprecation status and alternatives, prerequisites (id confirmation), parameter defaults and resolution, destructive nature, repeat-call behavior, and common error responses. It also includes the endpoint path and API category. For a delete operation with no output schema, this is fully complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential meaning: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record, to be resolved with the matching list tool first. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'unique identifier' descriptions and is crucial for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action with 'Deleting a piece of Equipment' and 'Permanently removes the equipment.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_equipment or create_equipment. The deprecation status is also explicitly named, 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 provides explicit guidance: it warns that the endpoint is deprecated and directs users to prefer a newer version, instructing them to 'use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' It also advises confirming the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and resolving id with the matching list tool first. These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directives with named alternatives.

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