Delete Incident

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

The description discloses additional behavioral details such as error payloads returning HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) and that a repeat call returns 404. However, the contradictory statements about soft-delete vs. permanent deletion significantly undermine transparency, as the agent cannot determine the actual effect of the operation.

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 dense with useful information (defaults, error handling, endpoint, required parameters) but is poorly structured due to the contradictory statements about soft vs. permanent deletion. This reduces clarity and makes it harder to parse the intended behavior.

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 provides extensive contextual details including endpoint path, error statuses, parameter defaults, and recovery mechanisms. However, the critical contradiction about whether the deletion is soft or permanent leaves a major gap in understanding the tool's behavior, and without an output schema, this gap is not compensated.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (id and project_id) as URL path parameters. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted and that id must reference an existing parent record, which is not covered in the schema.

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 the tool deletes an incident, but contains a direct self-contradiction: it first says 'Soft-deletes the specified incident, moving it to the recycle bin where it remains recoverable' and then later says 'Permanently removes the incident. This cannot be undone.' This makes the actual purpose ambiguous and could mislead an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 advises confirming the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and notes that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted. It also mentions the recycle bin and restore endpoints, providing context on alternative operations and recovery paths.

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