Delete Hazard

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces these by stating 'cannot be undone' and 'permanently removes', and adds the constraint about Procore-provided hazards. No contradictions.

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 repetitive, mentioning 'cannot be undone' twice and repeating 'permanently removes the specified Incidents'. It could be more concise without losing key information.

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 the irreversible nature and the constraint on system hazards. However, it omits information about return values or success/failure indications, leaving some gaps.

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 already describes the two parameters. The description merely restates that they are required, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema 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 states it deletes a Hazard but repeatedly refers to 'Incidents' instead, creating confusion about what the tool actually operates on. This inconsistency undermines clarity.

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 notes that Procore-provided Hazards cannot be deleted, which is a useful when-not-to-use guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to choose this over alternatives.

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