Delete Project Naming Standard Rule

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: repeat call returns 404, common error statuses (401/403/404), defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, and the requirement that rule_id reference an existing parent record. These details go well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 contains redundancy: 'Permanently deletes the project naming rule' and 'Permanently removes the project naming standard rule' say the same thing, and id-resolution guidance is repeated. It also lists required parameters and endpoint details that largely duplicate the schema, making it longer than necessary.

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?

This delete tool is thoroughly covered: purpose, prerequisites (confirm/resolve IDs), defaults, irreversibility, repeat-call behavior, and error semantics. The endpoint information and error status mapping are especially useful for an agent. No output schema is needed for a delete operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default from procore_set_config when omitted, and that rule_id must identify an existing parent record. This supplements the schema's generic 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 clearly states 'Permanently deletes the project naming rule' and 'Permanently removes the project naming standard rule', specifying a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools by targeting project naming standard rules specifically.

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 to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to resolve rule_id with the matching list tool first, providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not name the exact sibling tool or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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