Delete Time Entry

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals it's a soft-delete, that deleted entries are excluded from billing reports but retained for audit. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured by 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 bilingual, doubling its length, but each sentence adds value: defines the operation, the requirement, and the impact. It is front-loaded with purpose and concisely explains consequences.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values. It explains the core effect (soft-delete) and relevant business impact (exclusion from billing, audit retention), making it fully informative for a delete operation.

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 100% with bilingual descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining confirm=true's purpose (prevent accidental deletion), which is not in the schema descriptions. This goes beyond the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Soft-delete a time entry by ID', specifying the action (soft-delete), resource (time entry), and scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_time_entry, update_time_entry, and other delete_* tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Requires confirm=true to prevent accidental deletion', guiding the agent to always set confirm=true. While it doesn't contrast with alternatives, the requirement is clear and contextually sufficient.

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