Delete Project Location

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), idempotent-like behavior ('repeat call returns 404'), and detailed error handling ('common 401, 403, 404'). This is substantial added behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate outcomes. No contradiction with 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 fairly long but every sentence earns its place: action, prerequisites, consequence, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. Information is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 operation, the description covers preconditions (id confirmation), permanent consequences, error statuses, defaulted parameters, and required arguments. Although there is no output schema, the description adequately addresses what an agent needs to know for selecting and invoking this tool safely.

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?

While the schema already documents both parameters as URL path identifiers, the description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and location_id must identify an existing parent record to be resolved with the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description.

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 'Deletes a specified Location', which clearly states the verb and resource. It further specifies 'Permanently removes the project location', making the scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from other delete_* tools by identifying the exact resource (project location).

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 advises confirming the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling and specifies that location_id must be resolved with the matching list tool. It also notes that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config. This provides clear usage context and prerequisites, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use the tool.

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