Delete a time entry

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds context about permanence and the confirmation requirement, which are useful for understanding the irreversible nature. It does not contradict 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 delete tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential action and irreversibility. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but with no output schema that may be acceptable. It could offer more context about workspace fallback behavior, but that is already in the schema.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100%). The description's mention of confirm: true is redundant with the schema's const/true constraint and description. No new semantic meaning is added 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 tool's function ('Removes a time entry permanently'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_time_entry and get_time_entry.

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 implies use for permanent deletion but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'permanently' wording conveys irreversibility, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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