Remove a worklog from an issue by providing project, issue, and worklog IDs. Ensures accurate time tracking by deleting incorrect or obsolete entries.
Delete a worklog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the issue containing the worklog | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the issue | |
| worklog_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the worklog to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a worklog' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., time tracking), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it lacks necessary context for a destructive operation, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.
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?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, permissions), usage context, or what to expect upon deletion. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description fails to provide adequate context for safe and correct use.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (project_id, issue_id, worklog_id) clearly documented as UUID identifiers. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Delete a worklog' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (worklog), but it's overly simplistic and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_cycle', 'delete_label', or 'delete_module'. It specifies the action but lacks any nuance about what a worklog represents in this context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the worklog first via 'get_issue_worklogs'), nor does it clarify if this is reversible or has side effects. It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.