Delete Incident Alert Recipient

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavior: 'This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains error payload HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), providing practical context for the agent to interpret failures.

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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisites, behavior, errors, required parameters, and API reference. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the main purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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 purpose, prerequisites, behavioral outcomes, error handling, and parameter requirements. It does not explicitly state the success return (e.g., 204 No Content), but the 'repeat call returns 404' implies success on first call, making it sufficiently complete.

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 schema only describes parameters as URL path identifiers, but the description adds semantic value by stating 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that 'severity_level_id, id must identify existing parent records.' This goes beyond schema labels.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes an incident alert recipient for the specified Procore company.' It distinguishes this from siblings by the verb and resource, and reinforces with 'Permanently removes the incident alert recipient.' The endpoint is also provided, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit prerequisites and alternatives: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' It also notes the company_id default behavior and required parameters, giving the agent clear when-to-use guidance.

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