Delete Layer

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Permanently removes the layer. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses common error responses (401/403/404) and the fact that associated groups are deleted. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides substantial 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 detailed but well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then follows with prerequisites, defaulting behavior, irreversibility, error handling, and API context. Each sentence contributes useful information, though it is longer than strictly necessary with the API endpoint and category included.

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?

Given the destructive nature and existing annotations, the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter defaults, irreversibility, repeat-call behavior, and error statuses. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the success response format, but for a delete operation this is often implicit. Overall, it provides strong contextual completeness.

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 already fully describes each parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: company_id and project_id 'default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted' and layer_id 'must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' These contextual details enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Delete a layer and all its associated groups.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from other delete tools in the sibling list by explicitly identifying the target resource (layer) and its scope (associated groups).

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'layer_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also mentions defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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