Delete Notes Log

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and errors carry HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. It also clarifies the project_id default and the need for an existing parent record. These details significantly enhance the agent's understanding beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, but it contains redundancy: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' is repeated conceptually by 'resolve it with the matching list tool first'. The multiple sentences about error handling, while useful, could be tightened. Still, it is not overly verbose and all information is relevant.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: the exact resource and endpoint, required parameters, data resolution steps, consequences (permanent, unrecoverable), error behavior with common statuses, and API reference. This gives the agent sufficient context to correctly invoke the tool without needing additional lookups.

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 fully describes both parameters as URL path identifiers, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that project_id can default to a configured value when omitted and that id must reference an existing record resolvable via a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's simple identifier labels, providing actionable context for correct invocation.

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 'Delete single Notes Log', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It further specifies 'Permanently removes the notes log', distinguishing this tool from other delete operations like delete_equipment_log or delete_productivity_log. The endpoint and API reference reinforce the specific resource.

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 guidance: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and resolve id with the matching list tool. It also explains the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative deletion methods or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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