Delete Timesheet To Budget Configuration

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

The description discloses permanent removal, irreversibility, and that a repeat call returns 404. It also lists common error statuses (401, 403, 404) and explains the default company_id behavior. These details go beyond the annotations, which only indicate destructive and idempotent hints. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 composed of several short, information-dense sentences covering endpoint, error handling, defaults, and prerequisites. Despite the misleading first sentence, the content is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place.

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 key operational aspects: prerequisite verification, default behavior, error handling, and the API endpoint. However, the resource mismatch (timesheet vs timesheet_to_budget_configuration) and lack of clarity about what is actually being deleted make it incomplete for a delete operation. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, but the inaccurate resource name leaves a gap.

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 schema describes company_id as a URL path parameter. The description adds that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and clarifies that it is required. With 100% schema coverage, this extra semantic context about default behavior adds value 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 states 'Deletes a timesheet for the specified Procore company,' but the tool name and endpoint indicate it deletes a timesheet_to_budget_configuration. This misidentifies the resource. It also references a 'target id' that is not present in the parameter schema, creating confusion. The verb and resource are present but the resource is wrong.

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 advises confirming the target id with show/list tools before calling, which is a useful prerequisite. It also notes that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted. However, it does not distinguish when to use this delete over the create/update variants, and the 'target id' guidance is inconsistent with the actual parameter.

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