Destroy Near Miss

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

The description is internally contradictory (soft-delete vs permanent removal) and also conflicts with the idempotentHint annotation by stating a repeat call returns 404, which implies non-idempotent behavior. While it lists common error responses (401, 403, 404), the contradictions make behavior unpredictable and untrustworthy.

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 long run-on paragraph with redundant statements (e.g., 'Required parameters' appears later) and directly contradictory clauses. It is not concise and is poorly structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite including the API path, error codes, and restore information, the core behavior is unreliable due to the soft-delete/permanent-delete contradiction. For a destructive operation, the description should clearly state irreversibility and result, but it muddles this, leaving the agent unable to determine actual outcomes.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds misleading details: it says project_id defaults when omitted despite the schema marking it required, and describes 'id must identify an existing parent record' which is confusing since id is the near miss identifier. This actively harms 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 states a delete action on a near miss record but contradicts itself: it first says 'soft-deletes... moving it to the recycle bin where it remains recoverable,' then later says 'Permanently removes... This cannot be undone.' This contradictory behavior makes the tool's core purpose ambiguous, despite naming the resource.

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 clear prerequisites: confirm the target id with a show/list tool, resolve the parent record first, and notes project_id defaults to procore_set_config. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the guidance is practical and context is clear.

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