Delete PDF Template Config

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral details: the operation is permanent, a repeat call returns 404, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404) are disclosed. This gives the agent a complete picture of consequences and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 information-dense and well-structured, covering purpose, prerequisites, permanence, error handling, and API reference. Some redundancy exists ('Permanently removes' vs 'cannot be undone'), but overall each sentence adds value. It is longer than minimal but justifiably so 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers all critical aspects: what it deletes, how to verify the target, the irreversible nature, repeat-call behavior, common errors, and the API endpoint. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool safely and interpret failures.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds extra meaning by stating 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and 'id must identify an existing parent record.' However, the default claim contradicts the schema's required field, which could confuse the agent and reduce the helpfulness of this additional context.

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's function: 'Deletes a PDF template config for the specified Procore company.' It also emphasizes the permanent nature with 'Permanently removes' and 'cannot be undone,' making it unambiguous. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like update or create PDF template configs.

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 preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also gives error-handling context (401/403/404). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use the tool, the guidance on verification before deletion is clear and actionable.

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