Deletes Attachments From A Transfer.

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses that storage deletion failures are not surfaced, that the operation is permanent and cannot be undone, that a repeat call returns 404, and details common HTTP error statuses. This goes well beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and idempotentHint, providing a transparent view of the tool's side effects and failure modes.

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 long but well-structured, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by behavioral details, usage guidance, defaults, error handling, and API context. Each sentence adds value, and the structure makes key information easy to find, though it could be slightly more concise without losing critical details.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the API, the description covers most essential aspects: what is removed, side effects, prerequisites, error responses, and the exact endpoint. It does not describe the success response format, but this is a minor gap for a delete operation and the description is otherwise thorough.

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 basic URL path parameter descriptions. The tool description adds semantic meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, and that id must reference an existing parent record to be resolved with a list tool first. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema's minimal wording.

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 removes one or more attachments from a transfer by file IDs, with specific details about database and storage deletion. It differentiates from sibling tools by naming the resource type (transfer) and the entity being removed (attachments), which is directly aligned with the tool name and purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool, such as confirming the target ID with a matching show/list tool and resolving the parent record with the matching list tool first. It also clarifies default behavior for company_id and project_id. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to use alternative tools, though the specific resource context (transfer) makes this less critical.

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