Delete Timelog

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses a genuinely surprising backend behavior: cardId is ignored and deletion is resolved purely by logId, so a wrong cardId will delete the log from its real owner. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences deliver the core action and the critical warning, with the most important caveat front-loaded after the verb. No filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 destructive, non-idempotent two-parameter call, the description supplies the required verification step and the risk model, while annotations already carry readOnly/destructive/openWorld flags. Nothing needed to invoke it safely 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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters, the description adds critical semantics: logId is the authoritative id, while cardId is ignored for resolution and can be wrong with irreversible consequences. This reframes how the agent should treat the cardId parameter despite 100% schema coverage.

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 specific action and resource: 'Delete a timelog.' The WARNING further distinguishes it from sibling timelog tools by revealing the unique logId-only resolution behavior, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 directly instructs the agent to verify the cardId/logId pair with kaiten_get_card_timelogs(cardId) before deleting, which is a clear precondition for safe use. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives like update_timelog, but for a delete operation the intended context is evident.

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