Delete Monitoring Resource

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and repeat calls return 404. It also lists common failure statuses (401, 403, 404) and the error payload format. This enriches behavioral understanding beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

Structured logically: purpose, prerequisite steps, default behavior, permanence, error semantics, required params, and API reference. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded. Though lengthy, it packs high-value detail for a destructive operation.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operational context thoroughly: prerequisites, side effects, error handling, and parameter defaults. It even names the Procore API module and endpoint, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 descriptions are basic ('URL path parameter'), but the description adds meaning: project_id defaults to procore_set_config value when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record. It also clarifies the required parameters, adding practical guidance beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'Deletes a monitoring resource in the specified Procore project,' providing a specific verb and resource scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_monitoring_resources and create_monitoring_resource. The endpoint and API path further clarify the exact operation.

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve id with the matching list tool first. Also explains project_id defaults from procore_set_config, giving clear context on when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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