Delete Timecard Entry (Company)

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds critical detail: 'Permanently removes the timecard entry. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains error statuses (401, 403, 404), which is valuable beyond what annotations provide. 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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the description is verbose and somewhat redundant—'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' is repeated in different words later. The endpoint and API category information add length without substantial value for tool invocation. It is adequately structured but not concise.

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 prerequisites (confirm/resolve id), permanence, repeat-call behavior, and error statuses, making it fairly thorough for a destructive tool. However, the contradictory claim about company_id being required vs defaultable introduces uncertainty, and there is no mention of the success response (though no output schema exists). Overall adequate but with a notable flaw.

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 brief descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance for id ('must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'). However, it claims company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' which directly contradicts the schema listing company_id as required. This could mislead the agent to omit a required parameter, making the added meaning net negative.

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 'Deletes a timecard entry for the specified Procore company,' using a specific verb and resource with clear scope. This distinguishes the company-level operation from sibling tools like delete_timecard_entry_project or delete_timecard_entries.

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 prerequisites: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It implies company-level vs project-level usage but does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool. The note about company_id defaulting to procore_set_config adds context but conflicts with the schema's required field.

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