Deletes A Material Requirement Line Item.

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the hard delete is permanent and cannot be undone, repeat calls return 404, it only succeeds under certain document states, it explains defaulting behavior, and it maps likely error statuses (401, 403, 404) to causes. This goes far beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint flags.

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 but each sentence provides essential information: state restrictions, id resolution, defaults, permanence, repeat-call behavior, error codes, and the full endpoint. It is not a model of brevity, but the length is justified for a destructive tool with many behavioral nuances. A slightly more structured layout (e.g., bullet points) would earn a 5.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical operational context: preconditions, id resolution, default behavior, irreversibility, error responses, and the API endpoint. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the success response (e.g., 204 No Content), but for a hard delete this is a minimal omission. Overall it is nearly complete.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics: company_id and project_id default to configured values when omitted, and material_requirement_id/id must reference existing parent records, to be resolved via list tools. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource: 'performs a hard delete of a material requirement line item.' It also provides the full endpoint URL and resource hierarchy, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from any other delete tool in the sibling list.

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 preconditions: deletion only occurs when the document is in DRAFT or IN REVIEW state, and it advises confirming the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling. It also mentions that company_id and project_id default from procore_set_config. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools 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.