Delete Equipment Maintenance Log (Deprecated)

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

The description discloses that deletion is permanent, that a repeat call returns 404, and details error payload semantics (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true, adding concrete behavioral context. The idempotentHint=true annotation does not contradict the repeat-call behavior since the state remains deleted.

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 information-dense, with each sentence adding value: purpose, deprecation, prerequisites, permanence, errors, required params, and API reference. It earns a high score, but the contradictory company_id default statement and the typo 'Detete' prevent a perfect 5.

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, the description is quite complete: it covers deprecation schedule, how to find alternatives, id resolution, permanence, error codes, and required parameters. It lacks an explicit named alternative, and the company_id default confusion creates a slight gap, but overall it is highly informative.

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% (baseline 3), but the description states 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' directly contradicting the schema's required field for company_id. While it correctly clarifies that id is the maintenance log identifier (fixing the schema's nonsensical description), the misleading default undermines correctness.

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 equipment maintenance log,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It also provides the full API endpoint path (DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_maintenance_logs/{id}), making the exact operation unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_equipment_log.

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 warns that the endpoint is deprecated and instructs to 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' It also tells the user to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to resolve company_id via the matching list tool, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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