Delete Lookahead Task

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Permanently removes the lookahead task. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also enumerates common HTTP error payloads (401, 403, 404) and their meanings, which is valuable operational context not present in the annotations. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 fairly long but every sentence contributes useful information: the action, prerequisites, defaults, permanence, error semantics, required parameters, API category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and then progressively adds relevant detail. No filler or redundancy; the structure is logical and efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it (after resolving IDs), what to expect on success (permanent removal), what happens on repeat calls (404), and how failures are reported. It even includes the API endpoint and version. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain both IDs. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record—resolve it with the list tool. This extra guidance helps an agent correctly obtain and set the parameters, going beyond the schema's basic field 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: 'Delete a Lookahead Task from the project schedule.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_lookahead (delete a lookahead) or create_lookahead_task. The scope is precise and unmistakable.

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 clear procedural guidance: confirm the target id with a show/list tool first, resolve project_id via the default from procore_set_config when omitted, and resolve id as an existing parent record. It also notes expected error codes for common failure scenarios, giving an agent a strong sense of when and how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' but the resource-specific context effectively communicates its place.

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