Delete Specification Area Transfer

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral details: permanent removal, 'cannot be undone', repeat call returns 404, and typical error statuses (401/403/404). This significantly enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations alone. No contradiction 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 dense but every sentence provides value: core action, prerequisite steps, default behavior, permanence, idempotency, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded and well-organized, with no redundant 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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is deleted, how to prepare (resolve id), defaults, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error responses, required params, and API reference. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for an agent to invoke the tool 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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: company_id/project_id default to configured values, specification_area_transfer_id must reference an existing record, and the list of required parameters is re-emphasized. It doesn't add new semantics for specification_area_id beyond the schema, but overall it enriches parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('Specification Area Transfer'), and the scope ('in the specified Project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact resource type and endpoint, and the title reinforces the same. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm the target id with a show or list tool before calling, and to resolve specification_area_transfer_id with the matching list tool first. It also clarifies default behavior for company_id and project_id via procore_set_config, providing clear context on when this tool is appropriate.

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