Delete Item Response Set

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404, which aligns with the idempotentHint. It also documents common failure modes (401, 403, 404) and error payload format. However, it contains an internally inconsistent claim that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, which conflicts with the schema marking it required, slightly muddying the transparency.

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 informational and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is somewhat verbose. The instruction to confirm the target id is repeated twice ('Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first'). Each sentence earns its place, but tightening this redundancy would improve conciseness.

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 is highly complete for a delete tool with two parameters and no output schema. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, permanence, idempotency behavior, error handling, API endpoint, and required parameters. The only minor omission is explicit mention of a success response, but that is not necessary given no output schema and the clear destructive nature.

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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful semantics: company_id has a default behavior (even if questionable), and id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool first. It also confirms both are required. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions, though the default claim introduces confusion.

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 a Company Checklist Item Response Set for a specified Company.' It clearly identifies the action and target, and further clarifies permanent deletion. The resource name distinguishes it from other delete tools, and the API endpoint provides additional precision.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the target id with a matching show or list tool before calling, and repeats the need to resolve the id with a list tool first. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and identifies the required prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond show/list for id resolution.

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