Delete Safety Violation Log

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: 'Permanently removes... This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains error payloads (401/403/404), which is beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 purpose, then logically proceeds to prerequisites, effect, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: target resolution, permanence, idempotency, error semantics, required params, and API location. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults from procore_set_config when omitted and that id must resolve via a list tool, which the schema does not convey. This supplements rather than repeats 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 opens with 'Delete single Safety Violation Log', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_safety_violation_log, show_safety_violation_logs, and update_safety_violation_log by stating the scope ('single') and destructive action.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and explains that id must resolve to an existing parent record using the matching list tool. This provides clear when-to-use guidance versus list/show alternatives and mentions project_id default behavior from procore_set_config.

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