Delete Form

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavior: permanence ('This cannot be undone'), idempotent repeat behavior ('a repeat call returns 404'), and common failure modes (401, 403, 404). This is substantial value over structured annotations, with no contradiction.

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-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, consequences, error handling, and API reference. However, it has redundancy (repeating the confirmation and resolution instructions) and restates required parameters that are already visible in the schema. It is not overly long, but slightly repetitive.

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 covers prerequisites, irreversibility, error handling, and the endpoint. It does not specify the success response format (e.g., 200 OK or empty body), which is a gap for completeness. Also, the project_id 'defaults' vs 'required' contradiction creates mild confusion. Overall, it is quite complete for a delete operation.

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 documents both parameters with 'URL path parameter' descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics: project_id can default from procore_set_config, and id must identify an existing record resolved via a list tool. There is minor ambiguity in 'id must identify an existing parent record' (likely meant project_id), but overall it enhances understanding.

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 the action: "Delete the specified Form" and reinforces it with "Permanently removes the form." This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from related tools like update_form, show_form, or restore_project_form. The API endpoint and context (Project Management > Forms) further clarify its purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance to confirm the target id using a matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve the id with the list tool first. It also mentions that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config. However, it does not name specific sibling tools (e.g., show_form, list_forms_on_a_project) and lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, though the prerequisites are clear.

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