Delete a saved time-entry favorite. Requires confirm=true to proceed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set true to perform the action. Omit or false returns a preview only — nothing is written. | |
| favorite_id | Yes | Id of the favorite to delete. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Requires confirm=true to proceed' but does not elaborate on the preview behavior when confirm is false, nor does it explain side effects like irreversibility or authorization needs. The schema description for confirm is more informative than the tool description.
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 very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the action and requirement. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning the preview behavior.
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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., success/error messages) or the behavior of the idempotency_key. The preview behavior is implied but not explicitly stated in the description, relying on the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the requirement for confirm but does not add meaning beyond the schema for favorite_id or idempotency_key. It neither clarifies parameter values nor provides usage examples.
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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a saved time-entry favorite'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_favorite' or 'use_favorite' by specifying the delete operation.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other delete tools or when to use it at all. It only mentions a requirement (confirm=true) but no context about prerequisites or competitive tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.