Delete Equipment Log

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'Permanently removes the equipment log. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses error scenarios (401, 403, 404) and the default project_id behavior, which substantially exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 but every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, effect, error behavior, defaults, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids fluff or redundant restatement of the title.

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 with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is deleted, how to resolve inputs, what happens on failure, and the exact API reference. No gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke this 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% and parameters are clearly required, but the description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's minimal path-parameter identifiers.

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 Equipment Log', a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the scope ('single') and provides the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many equipment log siblings.

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?

It gives clear context: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and explains that project_id defaults to a configured value. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is actionable and unambiguous.

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