Delete Timecard Entries

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds crucial detail: 'Permanently removes the timecard entry. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains failure patterns (401, 403, 404), going beyond the structured annotations.

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 detailed but each sentence adds value—purpose, confirm-before-call, default, permanence, error handling, required parameter, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and well-structured.

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 it is a destructive action with no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what it deletes, how to verify targets, default behavior, irreversibility, and error responses. It lacks only an explicit alternative mention, but overall is comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has high coverage for both parameters, and the description supplements this by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and is required otherwise. The ids parameter is not further explained, but the schema already provides its role.

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 'Delete Timecard Entries associated with the specific Project' and identifies the endpoint, making the tool's function specific and distinguishable from related timecard tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular delete_timecard_entry, but the plural scope and project association provide adequate clarity.

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 instructs users to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling,' setting expectations for safe usage. It also notes the default project_id from procore_set_config and lists common error statuses, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions.

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