Delete Project Insurance

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and errors come back with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). These details go beyond the destructiveHint and help agents anticipate 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 compact but dense, with each sentence contributing meaningful details: the action, prerequisites, irreversibility, failure modes, required params, and endpoint info. It is slightly information-heavy but well organized and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: how to find the target id, the effect of the operation, repeat-call behavior, common error responses, and required parameters. It also gives the exact endpoint and API category. This is remarkably complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about project_id defaulting and the need for id to resolve to an existing record, and it lists required parameters. However, it internally contradicts the schema's 'required' for project_id by saying it can be omitted, and it does not explain the optional 'view' parameter. This reduces clarity beyond the baseline.

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 the specified Insurance') and the resource ('project insurance'), matching the tool name. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delete_company_insurance. The endpoint and API category reinforce the scope.

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 explicit usage guidance: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and resolve id via list tool first. Also explains the project_id defaulting behavior via procore_set_config. This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite steps.

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