Deletes Attachments From A Receipt Resource.

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that storage deletion failures are not surfaced to the caller, that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, that a repeat call returns 404, and that errors include HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 detailed and structured, covering behavior, usage, and error handling. However, it contains redundancy, such as mentioning id confirmation twice ('Confirm the target id...' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first'), and repeats the required parameters already present in the schema. It is slightly verbose but generally organized.

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?

Although the description covers behavioral details, errors, and endpoint information, the critical gap is the missing file ID parameter: the description implies file IDs are needed, but the schema does not expose them. The contradiction between 'default when omitted' and the schema's required flags also leaves the agent uncertain. The tool cannot be invoked correctly based on this description and schema alone.

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 description says attachments are removed 'by their file IDs,' yet the input schema contains no parameter for file IDs, making it impossible for the agent to specify which attachments to delete. Additionally, the description claims company_id and project_id default when omitted, which directly contradicts the schema marking them as required. This is misleading and severely undermines parameter understanding.

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 tool's action: 'Removes one or more attachments from the receipt by their file IDs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the receipt-specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete attachments from other resources like materials or shipments. Despite the missing file ID parameter in the schema, the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 practical usage context: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and explains that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config when omitted. It also details error recovery with HTTP status codes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, and the absence of a file ID parameter weakens the completeness of the guidance.

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