Delete Equipment Timecard Entry (Project)

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), that a repeat call returns 404, and common failure modes (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a realistic picture of side effects and error handling.

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 overly long, with redundant statements such as 'Required parameters: project_id, company_id, id' repeating the schema. It also contains self-contradictory claims (defaults vs required), making it structurally messy despite being front-loaded with the main verb.

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 prerequisites, irreversibility, failure modes, and the endpoint, which is fairly complete. However, the contradictory parameter information and the lack of success-response details (no output schema) leave gaps that prevent a higher score.

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?

While the schema covers all three parameters, the description adds confusing and contradictory information: it claims 'project_id and company_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted' but then lists them as 'Required parameters'. This inconsistency can mislead an agent into thinking they are optional, lowering the value of the added context.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Deletes an equipment timecard entry in the specified Procore project.' It clearly distinguishes from other delete tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_timecard_entry_project) by specifying 'equipment'.

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?

Provides clear preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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