Delete Managed Equipment Attachment (Deprecated)

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

The description discloses that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and that a repeat call returns 404, which complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also outlines common HTTP error responses (401, 403, 404), adding practical behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 structured with the core action first, followed by deprecation, usage notes, error handling, and endpoint details. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 covers the operation, deprecation status, parameter requirements, prerequisites, error scenarios, and endpoint path. Given the simplicity of a delete operation and the absence of an output schema, this is comprehensive and leaves no significant gaps.

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 input schema already describes each parameter as a URL path parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by noting that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that managed_equipment_id and id must reference existing records to be resolved with list tools. However, the defaulting note could conflict with the schema's required field marker.

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 'Deleting an attachment from a Managed Equipment,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It also reiterates 'Permanently removes the managed equipment attachment,' reinforcing the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_delete_managed_equipment_attachment.

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 explicit usage guidance: it flags the endpoint as deprecated, advises preferring a newer version, and directs the agent to procore_search_endpoints to find it. It also instructs to confirm the target id with show/list tools and to resolve parent records with list tools, giving clear prerequisites.

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