Delete Prime Change Order

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explicitly states the operation is permanent and cannot be undone, that a repeat call returns 404, and details common failure responses (401, 403, 404). It also discloses the default behavior for project_id. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of consequences and error handling.

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 then logically flows through limitations, prerequisites, consequences, errors, and required parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information. However, there is a slight redundancy between 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which could have been merged for tighter writing.

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 delete operation with a simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, configuration restrictions, id resolution, default behavior, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error responses, required parameters, API reference, and endpoint. This is more than sufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted and that id must be an existing parent record, ideally resolved via the list tool. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter relationships and required preconditions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete the specified Prime Change Order.' It further clarifies by stating 'Permanently removes the prime change order' and provides the exact API endpoint, making the operation unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_prime_change_order, show_prime_change_order, and delete_prime_change_order_batch.

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 strong usage guidance: it explains the limitation to 1/2 tier change order configurations, instructs to confirm the target id using a matching show or list tool, and mentions that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config. It also explains common error codes. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like the batch delete tool, the guidance for verifying the id and the tool's singular purpose are clear enough for correct selection.

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