Delete Timesheet

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, readOnly), the description adds critical behavioral details: permanence, irreversibility, repeat call returns 404, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404) with meaning. This is exactly the kind of context annotations don't provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, but contains some redundancy (both 'confirm id' and 'resolve id with list tool') and repeats required parameters already in schema. 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?

For a destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, permanence, error behavior, and endpoint. It does not describe the success response (e.g., 200/204), which is a minor gap, and the project_id default statement slightly conflicts with the schema's required field.

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 already describes both parameters as URL path identifiers (100% coverage), but description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted and that id must reference an existing parent record resolved via list tool. This goes beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Timesheet) scoped to a Project, and differentiates from sibling tools by naming the timesheet context and deletion semantics. It leaves no doubt about the operation.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the target id with a matching show or list tool before calling, and explains the project_id default via procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use, but provides clear prerequisites and context.

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