Delete Project Inspection Template Item Reference

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

Even with annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanence ('cannot be undone'), the consequence of a repeat call (404), and a clear error taxonomy (401 for expired token, 403 for permission, 404 for unresolved id). This goes well beyond what annotations provide and aligns with them, with no contradiction.

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 a single paragraph but well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary guidance on ID resolution, defaults, permanence, and error handling, but could be slightly tighter. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the endpoint/API location at the end is useful for reference.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers prerequisites (confirm id, resolve parents), the project_id default, permanent removal, repeat-call behavior, common error statuses, and the exact API endpoint. An agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that inspection_template_id and id must identify existing parent records and should be resolved via the list tool. This adds value beyond the terse schema 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 specific verb-resource statement: 'Deletes a project inspection template item reference in the specified Procore project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_inspection_template_item_reference, create_project_inspection_template_item_reference, and show_project_inspection_template_item_reference by indicating exactly what action it performs on which 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 provides strong usage context by telling the agent to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool, and to resolve parent records (inspection_template_id, id) with the list tool first. It also explains the project_id default behavior via procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or offer explicit alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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