Delete Purchase Order Contract

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

Even though annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds critical context: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404) are listed with their causes. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's 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 reasonably concise, and each sentence provides meaningful information: what the tool does, prerequisite steps, permanence/undo impossibility, repeat behavior, error scenarios, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is slightly long 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, when to use it (after resolving id), permanence, error handling, and the endpoint. It does not mention the success return format (e.g., 200 or 204), but that is a minor omission for a delete endpoint. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both id and project_id. The description adds that 'id must identify an existing parent record', which is a useful semantic hint but largely redundant with the earlier guidance to confirm via list/show. It does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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 states 'Deletes a purchase order contract in Procore' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, show, update, and list purchase order contracts. The additional phrase 'Permanently removes' reinforces the destructive nature of the 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?

It provides explicit guidance to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first', which clarifies a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the reference to matching show/list tools is sufficient for an agent to know the proper sequence.

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