Delete Wage Override

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable context: 'Permanently removes the wage override. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses the success response format and failure modes (401, 403, 404), which goes well beyond what annotations provide. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively long but every sentence serves a purpose: it front-loads the core action, then covers return value, prerequisites, defaults, permanence, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. It is well-structured and not redundant, though it could be slightly tightened without losing 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?

The description is complete for a destructive tool. It explains the return value, the permanence of the deletion, the default behavior for company_id and project_id, required parameters, error codes, and the exact endpoint. Even without an output schema, the agent has full context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds extra semantic value by explaining defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id via procore_set_config, and by emphasizing that wage_override_id must reference an existing record. This goes beyond the schema, but the schema already does heavy lifting, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a Wage Override from a Project,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly identifies the exact operation and target, distinguishing it from other delete tools in the sibling list by naming the Wage Override resource and providing the specific 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains the defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, and lists common failure statuses. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternative tools, though the show/list references imply the proper workflow.

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