Delete Harm Source

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds emphasis on permanence and the limitation about Procore provided harm sources. This adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 somewhat verbose with redundant statements ('This cannot be undone' appears twice) and includes API endpoint info that may not be essential. It could be more streamlined.

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 delete tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and a key constraint. It does not explain the resource concept or consequences, but sibling tools provide context. It is minimally adequate.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description repeats that parameters are required but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Deletes a Harm Source' and mentions that Procore provided ones cannot be deleted, distinguishing it from other harm source operations. However, it incorrectly refers to 'Incidents' in one sentence, which could cause confusion.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Incidents' (though it should say Harm Sources) and notes that Procore provided ones cannot be deleted, providing some guidance. However, it does not discuss when to use this vs. alternatives like bulk delete or prerequisites such as required permissions.

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