Delete Specification Upload

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'Permanently removes the specification upload. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses the error payload structure and common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), giving the agent a clear model of failure modes. No contradiction with annotations; in fact, it reinforces them.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it covers prerequisites, defaults, permanence, error behavior, required parameters, and even the API endpoint/version. The structure front-loads the core action and then layers on warnings and technical details, making it easy to parse despite its length.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, irreversibility, repeat-call behavior, and error responses thoroughly. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what a successful response looks like (e.g., 200 OK or empty body), but this is often implied for DELETE endpoints. Overall, it is highly 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including URL path roles. The description adds meaningful context on top: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and specification_upload_id must identify an existing parent record. This extra guidance helps the agent resolve correct parameter values, warranting a score above the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete an existing Specification Upload in the specified Project.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_specification_uploads or create_specification_upload. The scope (specified Project) and the permanent nature ('Permanently removes') further clarify its purpose.

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 the agent to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and repeats that specification_upload_id must be resolved with the matching list tool first. It also notes that company_id and project_id default to values set by procore_set_config, giving clear context on how to fill required parameters. This provides strong when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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