Delete Multiple Signatures

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

The description goes far beyond annotations: it states 'This cannot be undone,' 'a repeat call returns 404,' and details failure statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains request payload nesting and default project_id, which are important behavioral traits not captured by 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 dense but every sentence adds value—purpose, prerequisite confirmation, parameter handling, permanence, repeat behavior, error semantics, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically.

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 bulk operation with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites, destructive consequences, error payloads, parameter defaults, and the exact endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that fields passed as top-level arguments get nested under 'time_and_material_entry' and that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config. This gives the agent practical guidance beyond the schema's minimal field descriptions.

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 'Deletes the Signature for the corresponding IDs passed' and 'Permanently removes the multiple signature,' which conveys a specific verb+resource+scope. The name 'delete_multiple_signatures' and endpoint 'bulk_destroy' distinguish it from single-delete siblings like delete_a_signature.

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 guidance to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and explains the default behavior for project_id via procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternatives for single vs. multiple deletion, but the bulk-destroy endpoint and 'multiple' in the tool name imply the usage context.

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