Delete Field Rule

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds crucial behavior details: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures return an error payload with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of outcomes.

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 contains redundancy: 'Permanently deletes a field rule' is restated as 'Permanently removes the field rule,' and the instruction to confirm/resolve IDs appears twice. While not excessively long, these repetitions could be trimmed for tighter prose.

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 simple destructive endpoint with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: preconditions, argument defaults, irreversibility, error handling, and API reference. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by revealing that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, and that rule_id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'unique identifier' phrasing.

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 'Permanently deletes a field rule,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and permanence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_field_rule, update_field_rule, or list tools by focusing on deletion and referencing the need to resolve IDs via show/list tools.

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 to resolve rule_id with the matching list tool first. It also explains the company_id default from procore_set_config, giving clear context on required setup and prerequisites.

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