Delete Field Rule (Project Scope)

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: permanent and irreversible deletion, repeat call returns 404, error payloads with common HTTP statuses, and parameter defaults. No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint is consistent with the resource being permanently 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 long but densely informative. Each sentence provides unique value, including preconditions, defaults, permanence, error handling, and API reference. It could be slightly streamlined, but no sentence is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers purpose, effect, prerequisites, defaults, failure modes, and the exact endpoint. It misses success response details but that is unnecessary given the irreversible nature and typical 204 response. Overall, it is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter meaning significantly: company_id and project_id are optional due to procore_set_config defaults, rule_id must be resolved beforehand, and required parameters are explicitly listed. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it 'Deletes a project-scoped field rule' and explains the effect: reverting to the inherited company configuration. It differentiates from company-scoped deletion by explicitly stating 'project scope' and the tool name.

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 provides explicit instructions 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 clarifies that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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