Delete Incident Action Type

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

The description correctly emphasizes irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), aligning with destructiveHint=true. However, it misidentifies the deleted object as 'Incidents' instead of 'Incident Action Types,' which contradicts the tool's purpose and annotations. This error reduces trust in behavioral accuracy.

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 contains significant redundancy: 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' are repeated. It also includes an API endpoint line that may be unnecessary. Could be trimmed to a single clear sentence without repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description doesn't explain return values or success response. It also omits prerequisites, side effects, or references to sibling tools (e.g., show_incident_action_type, update_incident_action_type). For a destructive action, more context is needed.

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 describes both parameters (company_id, id) with clear descriptions. The description only repeats that they are required, adding no additional semantic value. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies.

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 an Incident Action Type, but later repeatedly refers to 'Incidents' (e.g., 'permanently delete the specified Incidents'), creating confusion about the target resource. This contradiction with the tool name and title 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 types cannot be deleted, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update_incident_action_types or other delete tools. No exclusions or context for selection.

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