Preview Asset Deletion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: no rows are modified, error payloads with 401/403/404, and defaulting of company_id/project_id via procore_set_config. It repeats 'Read-only' twice, but this is minor. No contradiction with 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 verbose and repetitive. It states 'Read-only' twice, and the sentence 'Returns a single JSON object describing the preview asset deletion' largely restates the first sentence. The API endpoint line is useful but could be tightened; the overall structure is not as crisp as it should be.

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 read-only preview tool with no output schema, it covers the return content (count + descendant projections), error behavior, defaults, and a concrete use case (UI confirmation copy). It could describe the response structure in more detail, but given the annotations and simple return shape, it is largely complete.

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. The description adds defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id and the asset resolution requirement. However, it contradicts the schema by first saying these default when omitted and then listing them as required parameters, which muddies the semantics.

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 ('Returns the impact of deleting the given project asset') and clearly scopes to project-level assets. The endpoint path and the phrase 'project asset' differentiate it from the sibling preview_asset_deletion_company. It also specifies the output (count and lightweight projections of descendants).

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 when-to-use context ('Use this when you already know which preview asset deletion you want') and a prerequisite ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It does not name the company-level sibling as an alternative or state when not to use it, but the instructions are clear enough for an agent.

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