Preview Asset Deletion

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), the default behavior for company_id via procore_set_config, and the return format ('single JSON object'). This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 longer than necessary and contains redundancy: 'Read-only — no rows are modified' is repeated as 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' The phrase 'which preview asset deletion you want' is also awkward since the tool itself is the preview. It could be tightened without losing information.

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 having no output schema, the description covers the return type ('single JSON object'), the nature of the result (descendant count and projections), common error responses, prerequisite steps, and the API endpoint. This is sufficient for a read-only preview tool with well-covered annotations.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds value beyond the schema by noting that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that asset_id must identify an existing parent record, resolving it with a list tool first. These enrich the parameter meanings.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the impact of deleting the given company asset, including the count and lightweight projections of every descendant in the subtree.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like preview_asset_deletion_project by explicitly stating 'company asset' and describes the exact output scope.

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 clear context: 'Use this when you already know which preview asset deletion you want and need its full field set' and advises to resolve asset_id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., preview_asset_deletion_project) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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