Delete Hazard

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that a repeat call returns 404, and by explaining common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is valuable behavioral context. The slight inaccuracy about 'parent record' and the conflicting company_id default statement prevent a perfect score, but the disclosures themselves are strong.

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 fairly long and contains redundancy: the instruction to confirm the target id appears twice ('Confirm the target id...' and 'id must identify an existing parent record... resolve it'), and 'Required parameters: company_id, id' repeats schema information. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes useful error-handling details, so it is not excessively verbose.

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 (confirm id), restrictions (custom only), error handling, and permanence. However, the internal contradiction about company_id being optional versus required, and the vague 'parent record' phrase, introduce ambiguity. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the response would be helpful but is not mandatory for a delete operation. Overall, it is mostly complete but flawed by the contradiction.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's claim that 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' directly contradicts the schema which marks company_id as required. This is actively misleading for parameter handling, and no additional meaningful semantics are added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's action ('Deletes a custom hazard') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from deleting Procore-provided hazards (which cannot be deleted). It also provides the exact API endpoint and scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: for deleting custom hazards, and explicitly warns that Procore-provided hazards cannot be deleted. It instructs the user to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool first, and mentions resolving the id via list tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other cases, so it stops short of perfect guidance.

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