Delete Unit Of Measure

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing specific behaviors: admin-only access, 422 for standard UOMs, permanent deletion (cannot be undone), repeat call returns 404, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also clarifies company_id default behavior, adding substantial operational context beyond the structured hints.

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 informative, but it is a single large block with some redundancy (e.g., 'Required parameters' repeated at the end, endpoint details already implied by the API path). Most sentences earn their place, but it could be more tidily structured.

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 permissions, constraints, error handling, id resolution, default behavior, and irreversibility. The only notable gap is no mention of the successful response body or status (e.g., 204), but that is not critical. Overall, it is quite complete for a delete operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance about resolving the id via list tools, but it creates confusion by stating 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while also listing company_id as a required parameter. This internal inconsistency undermines the added value and could mislead the agent.

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 custom Unit of Measure (UOM)') and identifies the specific resource type. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly limiting scope to custom UOMs and mentioning Procore-provided standard UOMs, which is unique context.

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 clear usage context: admin-only restriction, custom-only restriction, and explicit instruction to confirm the target id with the show or list tool before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative deletion methods or state 'when not to use', but the limitations effectively guide the agent.

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