Delete Signature

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

It adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Permanently removes the signature. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' This goes beyond destructiveHint=true by explaining irreversibility and the 404-on-repeat behavior. It also details common error statuses (401, 403, 404), which is valuable and not present in 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 main purpose and contains rich information. However, there is redundancy: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first' say essentially the same thing. A cleaner structure would remove one of these mentions.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, it covers purpose, ID resolution, irreversibility, and failure modes. The only notable gap is the contradictory statement about project_id being both required and defaultable, which could confuse an agent. Otherwise it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool, and project_id can default to procore_set_config. However, there is an internal contradiction: it says project_id is required but also says it defaults when omitted, which slightly undermines clarity.

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 clear action: 'Deletes the Signature for the corresponding ID passed.' This specifies the verb (delete), the resource (Signature), and the identifier. It also includes the exact endpoint (DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/signatures/{id}) and API area, which helps distinguish it from other delete-signature siblings like delete_a_signature or delete_signature_project_v1_0.

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 gives explicit context on when to use the tool: confirm the target ID with a show/list tool before calling, and resolve the id as an existing parent record first. It does not explicitly name alternative delete-signature tools or state when not to use this one, but the resolver guidance is clear and actionable.

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