Delete Visitor Log

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description expands on these with 'This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also details common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404) and the project_id default, adding value beyond structured fields.

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 structured: purpose, prerequisite, behavior, error handling, required params, and endpoint. Each sentence delivers unique information with no redundancy, and the opening phrase is immediately clear.

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 operation with no output schema, it covers verification, irreversibility, error cases, required parameters, and even the HTTP endpoint. This leaves no major gaps for an agent to guess.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds a default for project_id ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and clarifies id must reference an existing parent record, which is not in the schema. This pushes the score above the baseline.

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 opens with 'Delete single Visitor Log.' and later confirms 'Permanently removes the visitor log.' This clearly states the action and target resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_visitor_logs, show_visitor_logs, and update_visitor_log by specifying delete semantics and providing the 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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also documents the project_id default from procore_set_config, giving agents concrete planning guidance.

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