Delete Productivity Log

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, that a repeat call returns 404, and details error responses with common HTTP status meanings. It also notes authentication/permission failures (401/403). This is significant value beyond the destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, and idempotentHint 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 densely packed with useful information and is front-loaded with the primary verb. It includes safety warnings, error handling, and API endpoint details. However, there is some redundancy, such as repeating the instruction to confirm the id in two sentences, and the 'Required parameters' line duplicates schema information. Still, it remains well-organized and efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to safely invoke it, permanence, error behavior, and API endpoint. It explains the common failure modes and the need for existing records. Nothing essential is missing given the tool's simplicity and the available annotations.

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 provides full parameter descriptions for id and project_id (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful guidance: id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with the list tool first. It also mentions project_id's default behavior via procore_set_config, though this is inconsistent with the required flag. Overall, the description supplements the schema with useful resolution semantics.

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, specific verb and resource: 'Delete single Productivity Log.' It distinguishes this from sibling CRUD tools (list, create, show, update) by explicitly stating the delete action and its permanent effect. The endpoint and API context further clarify the exact operation.

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?

Provides clear guidance to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and warns that a repeat call returns 404. It also explains common failure scenarios (401/403/404). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the update tool or state when deletion is inappropriate beyond the confirmation advice, and the mention that project_id defaults when omitted contradicts the required status in the schema.

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