redmine_delete_time_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permanent deletion and respect for read-only configuration, which are critical behavioral traits. Additional details like permission requirements could further improve 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds an important constraint. Every word is meaningful and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers permanence and configuration awareness. However, it omits error conditions, return value (output schema exists but not described), and prerequisites like authentication or permissions. Still, it is sufficient for a simple deletion tool.

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 0%, yet the tool description adds no meaning to the 'time_entry_id' parameter beyond its name. The parameter is obvious, but for a 0% coverage tool, more detail (e.g., format, source) would be expected.

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 resource (time entry), and uses 'Permanent' to emphasize irreversibility. It distinguishes well from siblings like create/update time entries.

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 mentions permanence and read-only flag, giving usage context. It implies this tool is for irreversible deletion, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools.

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