Delete Timecard Entry (Project)

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it is permanent, cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failures come with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is exactly the kind of insight an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, but includes slight redundancy: 'Confirm the target id...' is repeated later as 'resolve it with the matching list tool first', and 'Permanently removes' is echoed by 'This cannot be undone'. Still, every sentence carries useful information.

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?

Covers all critical aspects for a delete operation: prerequisites, irreversibility, error semantics, defaults, required parameters, API location, and endpoint. No output schema exists, so return payload details are not needed. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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, but the description adds meaningful context: project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted (though schema lists it as required, which is a minor inconsistency), and id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 action ('Deletes a timecard entry') with a specific scope ('in the specified Procore project'), distinguishing it from company-level or batch deletion siblings. The endpoint and API path further disambiguate the tool.

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 provides practical guidance: confirm the target id with show/list tools, resolve parent records first, and notes the default behavior of project_id via procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative delete tools or state when not to use it.

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