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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical nuance: the delete is a soft move to Trash and is restorable, and it enumerates exactly which entry states will be refused. That is meaningful behavior beyond the flags.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the core action and recoverability front-loaded before edge cases. The trailing quoted utterance is slightly informal but functions as a compact usage cue.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies the remaining essentials: soft-delete semantics, refusal conditions, and idempotent behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces scope for userId ('signed-in person's own') and encodes the refusal of foreign IDs, aligning with the schema note — a modest value-add over the already-rich schema text.

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 ('Moves one of the signed-in person's own time entries to Trash'), plus the ownership scope. It is clearly distinguishable from restore_time_entry and list_time_entries, and notes the refusal conditions up front.

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?

Gives concrete when-it-fails conditions (entry filed for approval, approved, or invoiced is refused) and idempotency behavior (already in Trash succeeds and changes nothing). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., restore_time_entry), but the quoted example utterance grounds the intended use case.

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