Delete Procore Item Association

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explicitly states that the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and specifies common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This provides significant behavioral context that an agent needs.

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 four sentences and efficiently packs purpose, prerequisites, destructive nature, error handling, and endpoint without fluff. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, destructive behavior, and error conditions, making it quite complete for a delete operation. However, it does not mention what a successful response looks like (e.g., 204 No Content), which would be useful since there is no output schema.

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 input schema fully describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that coordination_issue_id and id must identify existing parent records and should be resolved via list tools first, giving additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 action (delete) and resource (association between Coordination Issue and Procore item), and provides the exact endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like bulk_delete_procore_item_associations, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 instructs to confirm target ids with matching show/list tools before calling, which is useful usage guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_delete. The context implies it should be used for a single association deletion, but no explicit when/when-not is given.

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