Delete Project Segment Item

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing the permanent nature ('Permanently removes... This cannot be undone'), the 404 on repeat calls, and specific error scenarios (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This gives the agent critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 each sentence adds essential information: prerequisites, default behavior, permanence, error reporting, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. Only minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Confirm the target id' and 'resolve them with the matching list tool first' overlap slightly).

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 tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites, side effects, error semantics, default parameter behavior, and the exact API endpoint. The agent has everything needed to safely invoke the tool and interpret failures.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description introduces confusion by stating 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while also listing project_id as a required parameter. This contradicts the schema's required list and could mislead an agent into thinking it can be omitted. The description does not add further semantic value for segment_id or id beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Delete a specific Project Segment Item', which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project_segment_item, update_project_segment_item, and list_project_segment_items. The name and title are also descriptive, but the description adds the scope and object type explicitly.

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 clear prerequisites: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' It also notes the default behavior of project_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use update instead of delete), though this is largely implied for a delete operation.

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