Remove Existing Labels To Specified Resources.

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

The description contradicts the annotations: idempotentHint=true implies the operation is idempotent, but the description explicitly states 'a repeat call returns 404' and 'Permanently removes the existing label. This cannot be undone.' Additionally, the description internally contradicts itself by first saying 'labels themselves are not deleted' and later 'Permanently removes the existing label.' This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 dense and includes useful operational details (endpoint, API version, error handling), but it contains redundant and contradictory wording, such as 'Permanently removes the existing label' conflicting with the initial clarification. The required parameters list duplicates schema information, and the overall text is longer than necessary.

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?

The description is rich in operational context, covering defaults, failure modes, and the endpoint. However, due to the annotation contradiction and the lack of any mention of the response/return value, it is not fully complete. The internal inconsistency also undermines overall completeness for an agent trying to reliably invoke the tool.

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%, and the description adds value by listing required parameters and noting the defaulting behavior of company_id and project_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not add deeper semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter, such as value formats or relationships between label_guids and resource_guids.

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 clearly states a specific action (removes the association between labels and resources) with a clear object (labels/resources). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'adds_existing_labels_to_specified_resources' by explicitly noting that labels are not deleted and only the association is removed, making the operation unambiguous.

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: it tells the agent to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and explains that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config when omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance with exclusions.

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