Remove Signature From Timecard Entry (Project)

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

Annotations already flag destructive, idempotent, and non-read-only behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable behavioral context: PATCH partial-update semantics, return value (modified signature), and specific HTTP error causes (401/403/404). 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 front-loaded with the primary action and then provides focused, non-redundant details like error codes and the endpoint. Some redundancy exists with the schema (e.g., 'Required parameters: id, project_id') and the API location could be trimmed, but the length is justified for the amount of helpful context.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, defaults, return value, and failure modes, making it nearly self-contained. It does not detail the structure of the returned signature object, but that is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 both parameters at 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by stating that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that id must reference an existing parent record resolved via a list tool, which goes beyond the schema's path-parameter labels.

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 clear action: 'Remove the signature ID from the provided timecard entry,' specifying both the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling signature tools such as update_timecard_entry_signature_project or delete_signature_project, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides actionable context: resolve the id with the matching list tool, know that project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and understand that omitted fields keep their values. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the prerequisites and defaults give clear usage guidance.

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