Delete Timecard Entry

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces 'This cannot be undone' twice and provides the endpoint, which adds moderate behavioral context. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations already cover.

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 front-loaded with purpose but contains redundancy (e.g., 'cannot be undone' stated twice). It includes extraneous details like 'Procore API: Project Management > Field Productivity' which, while possibly helpful, could be trimmed. Overall, it is adequately concise but not optimally 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?

For a simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, irreversibility, and required parameters. It also provides API context. While it lacks response details, completeness is acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (id, project_id) with descriptions. The description merely repeats that they are required, adding no new meaning. Baseline is 3 due to 100% schema coverage, and the description does not enhance semantics.

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 a specific Timecard Entry' and identifies the resource as 'Field Productivity records.' However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_timecard_entries' or other delete operations, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Field Productivity records' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk delete) or when not to use it. There is no comparative context among sibling tools.

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