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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful business constraint that only entries outside a booked payroll run are deletable, which is behavioral context the annotations do not convey. It does not describe error behavior or return content.

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?

Two short sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. The trailing "Argument: orgnr, entry_id" is redundant with the required-parameters list, but the whole thing stays tight.

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?

A destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema should ideally say what is returned or what happens on success/failure. It covers the deletion precondition but leaves the post-condition and the undocumented entry_id unexplained, making it only minimally adequate.

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 50%: orgnr is well documented in the schema with format and a sourcing hint, but entry_id has no description anywhere, and the description merely re-lists both argument names without adding semantics. With a bare required integer parameter, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Ta bort en tidpost" = delete a time entry) and adds a qualifying precondition (entries not part of a booked payroll run), which distinguishes it from list_time_entries/review_time_entries and other delete_* tools. Clear enough for selection, though it doesn't name a sibling alternative.

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 clause "som inte ingår i en bokförd lönekörning" gives an explicit eligibility condition for when deletion is allowed, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming what to do when the entry IS in a booked run (no alternative tool cited).

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