Delete Work Log

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds concrete behavioral details: 'This cannot be undone,' a repeat call returns 404, and failures return an error payload with HTTP status codes (401/403/404). It also discloses the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config, which is not captured in annotations. This gives the agent key expectations for side effects and error handling.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently covers usage guidance, permanence, error handling, required parameters, and API location. Every sentence contributes value, though the error-handling enumeration makes it slightly longer than the minimal viable description. Still well-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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, prerequisites (id resolution), permanent behavior, idempotency (repeat call returns 404), common error causes, required params, and the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly state the success status code (e.g., 200/204), which is a minor gap for a delete operation, but the overall context is solid.

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 already describes both parameters as URL path identifiers with 100% coverage. The description adds useful meaning: project_id can default from procore_set_config and id must be resolved via the list tool first. However, it also states 'Required parameters: project_id, id' while saying project_id defaults when omitted, creating an internal contradiction and conflicting with the schema's required flag. This inconsistency undercuts the added value.

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 a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Delete single Work Log.' It further clarifies 'Permanently removes the work log,' which distinguishes it from sibling list/show/update tools. The single-record scope and endpoint reference remove any ambiguity.

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 preconditions: confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool, and resolve id with the list tool before calling. Also explains project_id defaults from procore_set_config when omitted. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g., show_work_logs, list_work_logs) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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