Delete Todo (Deprecated)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that deletion is permanent and irreversible, repeat calls return 404, and failure responses carry HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) with context. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false).

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 front-loaded with the purpose and contains critical operational details. However, there is redundancy in the deprecation notices ('This endpoint has been deprecated' and later 'DEPRECATED: Procore has deprecated this endpoint') and a malformed bracket ('[/rest/v1/calendar-items)') that slightly detract from structure.

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 action, the description covers deprecation, alternative paths, id verification, permanent consequences, repeat-call behavior, and common error statuses. No output schema exists, so not describing the success response is acceptable. The context is complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds valuable context: id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with a list tool, reinforcing how to use the parameters correctly. This is more than the schema alone, but not extensive.

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 tool's action: 'Delete a specific ToDo Item in a specified Project.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (show_todo, update_todo, sync_todos) by noting deprecation and directing to an alternative 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?

Provides explicit guidance: deprecated, use calendar-items instead, use procore_search_endpoints to find newer versions, and confirm the target id with list/show tools before calling. This fully addresses when to use the tool and how to avoid pitfalls.

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