Delete Project Vendor Insurance

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, readOnly false), the description adds critical behavioral context: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures carry HTTP status codes with common meanings. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to handle side effects and errors. No contradiction with annotations; the idempotentHint aligns with the repeat-call-404 behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool does. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail (prerequisites, irreversibility, errors, required params, endpoint) without filler. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, error handling, permanence, defaults, and the endpoint. It does not explicitly describe the successful response shape, but for a delete this is often implicit (e.g., 200/204 with no content). The optional 'view' parameter is omitted, though it is not required for the core operation. Overall, the description is robust and actionable.

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 already describes all 4 parameters well (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and that vendor_id and id must resolve to existing records. It also lists required parameters and the endpoint mapping. The optional 'view' parameter is not mentioned, but this is a minor gap given the high schema coverage.

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 and resource: "Delete the specified Project Vendor Insurance." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create/update/list project vendor insurance by focusing on deletion and the exact resource type. The endpoint path further disambiguates the exact operation.

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 guidance on prerequisites: confirm the id with the matching show/list tool and resolve parent records (vendor_id, project_id) before calling. It also explains error conditions (401/403/404) that help the agent know when to retry or avoid the call. However, it does not explicitly name the specific sibling tool(s) to use for confirmation, relying on the generic 'matching list tool'.

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