Delete a Redmine time entry permanently. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental data loss.
Delete time entry (DELETE /time_entries/:id.json). Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to perform destructive action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the confirm requirement (already in the schema) and implies destructiveness via 'Delete' but does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and the key requirement. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple delete-by-id tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and the confirm requirement. However, it omits explicit statements about permanence or any prerequisites beyond confirm, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations. Overall, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.
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%: confirm is documented in the schema ('Must be true to perform destructive action'), and the description repeats that. The id parameter has no description, and the description adds no extra meaning about what id refers to or its format. The tool description contributes minimal value beyond the schema.
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 time entry') and identifies the resource (time entry) with a specific HTTP endpoint. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like redmine_time_entry_update or redmine_time_entry_get.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, though the purpose is obvious from the name. It does note the confirm requirement, which is a prerequisite for calling the tool, but provides no guidance on contexts or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.