Delete Project Checklist Template

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

The description discloses that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and that a repeat call returns 404. It also details common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and error payload behavior, going beyond the annotations' destructiveHint. This gives the agent important behavioral context for anticipating outcomes.

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 structured with purpose, preconditions, consequences, error handling, and API reference in a logical order. While the id-resolution advice is stated twice, the overall size is justified by the critical safety information for a destructive operation. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, preconditions, side effects, and error semantics. It omits the success response format, but for a delete this is typically a 2xx status and not essential. The tool is simple enough that this coverage is adequate.

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 documents both required parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record, providing useful resolution guidance. This elevates the score to 4.

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 'Deletes an Inspection Checklist Template' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly targeting project checklist templates and referencing the DELETE endpoint. The name and title align with the described action.

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 callers to confirm the target id using the matching show or list tool before invoking, and to resolve id with the matching list tool first. It also warns that deletion is permanent, which is crucial for deciding when to use this tool. This provides clear context and excludes misuse.

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