Delete Inspection Log

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'Permanently removes', 'This cannot be undone', 'a repeat call returns 404', and common error payloads (401, 403, 404). It also explains project_id defaulting behavior, which exceeds annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, but includes several secondary details (error codes, endpoint, API path) that could be trimmed. It is not verbose enough to be a problem, but it could be more streamlined.

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 thoroughly covers the destructive nature, idempotency nuance, parameter requirements, configuration default, error scenarios, and API endpoint. No output schema is needed for a delete operation, and the context provided is sufficient for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 covers both parameters fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining id must be resolved via a list tool, but it contradicts the schema when claiming 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' even though project_id is marked required. This inconsistency prevents a higher score.

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 'Delete single Inspection Log,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_equipment_log or delete_work_log by explicitly naming Inspection Log.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use this delete over other options, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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