Delete my man-hours

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add blast-radius detail, which it does well: omitting taskId wipes ALL tasks of the project for that day. It also discloses a precondition (closed/fixed days reject changes) that annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying whether deletes are recoverable or what a failure returns.

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, zero filler, and the critical bulk-delete warning is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. The precondition clause is correctly placed last as a secondary constraint.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, blast radius, and blocking preconditions. Only the response/error shape and recoverability are unaddressed, which are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 67%, and the description adds the most important semantic beyond the schema: the omitted-taskId case is a bulk delete across the whole project-day, not a no-op. projectId has no schema description but the description ties it to the day/task scope. Date format details remain in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete your own man-hours") plus the exact granularity of one day and one project, which cleanly separates it from siblings like save_manhours and get_manhours. The scope qualifier "your own" tells the agent whose data is affected.

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?

Gives clear operative context: what happens when taskId is omitted, and that closed (締め) or fixed (確定) days cannot be changed. It does not explicitly name save_manhours as the alternative for corrections, but the usage conditions are unambiguous.

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