Delete Quantity Log

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

Beyond the annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description adds critical details: 'Permanently removes', 'cannot be undone', 'repeat call returns 404', and a full breakdown of failure status codes. This gives the agent a clear picture of irreversibility and error semantics that are not present in the structured fields. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary details. There is some slight repetition between 'Confirm the target id' and the later sentence about resolving the id with the list tool, but each sentence still contributes useful information about preconditions, side effects, and error handling.

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 simple DELETE operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, permanence, error behavior, required parameters, and even the API endpoint path. The annotations and schema cover the deterministic parts, and the description fills in all essential contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both project_id and id, but the description adds valuable meaning by noting project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record. This helps the agent understand parameter behavior beyond the schema's basic field 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 opens with 'Delete single Quantity Log', a specific verb plus resource that clearly states the action. It is further distinguished from sibling tools like list_quantity_logs, create_quantity_log, show_quantity_logs, and update_quantity_log by emphasizing 'single' and 'Permanently removes'.

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 it with the matching list tool first', giving clear pre-usage context. It also provides error status meanings (401/403/404) that help the agent decide when to invoke and what to expect, though it does not explicitly state 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.