Destroy Injury

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

The description is internally contradictory regarding the delete behavior—it mentions both soft-delete/recoverable and permanent removal. This is a serious transparency failure. Although it discloses repeated-call 404 and error payload details, the central question of whether the action is reversible remains murky. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description's soft-delete claim conflicts with that expectation.

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 a dense, single paragraph containing redundant instructions about confirming/resolving the id, and it has a major contradiction. It includes useful context such as the API path and error codes, but the redundancy and lack of clear structure reduce its quality.

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 operation, clarity on irreversibility is essential. The description fails because it simultaneously says the record is recoverable and permanently removes it. It also omits what a successful response looks like. Even though it includes error handling and id-resolution guidance, the contradictory recovery semantics leave the agent without a complete and reliable mental model.

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 describes all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config and that id must reference an existing record, which adds practical meaning for correct invocation. It does not discuss incident_id, but that parameter is optional and schema-documented.

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 identifies the resource (injury record) and an action (destroy/delete), but it gives contradictory statements: first 'soft-deletes... moving it to the recycle bin where it remains recoverable' and later 'Permanently removes the injury. This cannot be undone.' This internal inconsistency prevents a clear understanding of what the tool actually does.

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 actionable guidance: confirm the target id using the matching show or list tool before calling, note that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and mentions that id must identify an existing parent record. It also explains common failure statuses (401, 403, 404), which helps an agent decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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