Destroy Specification Section Revision

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

Goes beyond annotations by adding concrete behavioral details: irreversible deletion, defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, and error response payload specifics. These disclose real-world behavior 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?

All sentences are informative, but there is minor redundancy: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' convey overlapping instructions. Otherwise, the description is well-structured with purpose first, followed by usage context, defaults, and error handling.

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 essential aspects: how to safely identify the target, what happens on repeat calls, expected error codes, and environment defaults. It does not need to describe return values since delete operations have trivial success responses, and it adequately handles the risky nature of the operation.

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 already covers parameters with basic 'URL path parameter' descriptions. The description adds semantics not present in schema: default behavior for company_id and project_id, and the requirement that id must reference an existing record resolved via a list tool. This adds meaningful value to the 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?

Description clearly states the tool 'destroys a specification section revision' and reinforces with 'Permanently removes the specification section revision.' It includes the exact HTTP verb and endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling list/show tools by explicitly directing to use them for confirmation first.

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 explicit preconditions: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also warns about repeated calls returning 404 and details common failure scenarios (401, 403, 404), giving clear when-to-use and when-to-expect-bad-outcomes guidance.

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