Delete Inspection Type

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description repeats 'cannot be undone' but adds no new behavioral context. It does not explain what happens to associated data or whether the action is reversible in any way. The description also misuses 'Inspections' instead of 'Inspection Types', causing slight confusion.

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 reasonably concise but contains redundancy: 'This cannot be undone' and 'This action cannot be undone' are repeated. The inclusion of Procore API and endpoint details adds length but may be useful for some users. Overall, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, status codes). It does not mention return values or how to verify success. Given the simple parameter set, the description lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the outcome.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description merely repeats that company_id and id are required, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states it deletes an Inspection Type for a specified Company using strong verbs like 'Deletes'. However, it also refers to 'Inspections' which is a slight inconsistency with the resource 'inspection_type'. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_inspection_type' or 'create_inspection_type', but the verb itself provides sufficient distinction.

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 instructs to use this tool to permanently delete inspection types, but it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., deactivation). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.

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