Delete Standard Cost Code (Deprecated)

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that deletion is permanent ('This cannot be undone'), that a repeat call returns 404, and lists common failure modes with statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint 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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value: deprecation, usage steps, behavioral consequences, and error handling. It is structured with clear sections, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description covers purpose, deprecation, parameter requirements, error conditions, and idempotent behavior. It does not explicitly describe a success response, but for a delete operation this is often implicit (e.g., 204/empty), and the overall completeness is strong for a destructive tool with rich annotations.

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%, but the description adds meaning by requiring id to identify an existing parent record and recommending resolution via the matching list tool. It also states required parameters, complementing the schema without redundancy.

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 a Standard Cost Code for ERP integrated companies and standard cost code lists.' It clearly states the action, and the deprecation note distinguishes it from potential sibling tools by naming the replacement endpoint.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it marks the endpoint as deprecated, instructs to prefer a newer version, and directs the agent to 'use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' It also advises confirming the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, which is actionable usage guidance.

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