Delete Prime Change Order Batch

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

Even with annotations already declaring destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds substantial context: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures return error payloads with HTTP status codes (401/403/404). This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent critical expectations about side effects 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 relatively long but efficiently packed with actionable information: prerequisite confirmation, default behavior, permanence, idempotency, error semantics, required params, and endpoint reference. Each sentence contributes meaningful guidance, and the main action is front-loaded. A minor redundancy exists between 'Confirm the target id...' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' but overall it is tightly written.

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 no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites (confirm/resolve id), parameter defaults, IRreversibility, repeat call behavior, error scenarios, required parameters, and the API endpoint context. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool safely and correctly without 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described as a URL path parameter. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This provides semantic guidance beyond the schema's basic type and location 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: "Delete the specified Prime Change Order Batch." It further reinforces the action with "Permanently removes the prime change order batch," which unambiguously distinguishes this delete operation from sibling list/show/create/update tools for the same resource, as well as from the closely named delete_prime_change_order (which targets a different 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 explicitly instructs the agent to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling and to resolve the id with the matching list tool, providing clear sequencing guidance. It also notes the project_id default from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative delete tools (e.g., delete_prime_change_order) or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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