delete_entryRemove an entry only when it was wrong when written, such as a wrong task or decision never made; if overtaken by later work, append instead.
For an entry that was wrong when written (wrong task, a decision never made). An entry overtaken by later work is history, not wrong: append instead. Not for tidying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Your model id, e.g. 'claude-opus-5'. | |
| entry_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose a genuine semantic policy (destructive removal is reserved for factually-wrong entries, not superseded ones). However, it says nothing about reversibility, whether the delete is soft or hard, permission requirements, or behavior when entry_id doesn't exist. Useful intent signal, incomplete operational profile.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the selecting condition before the alternative. The final 'Not for tidying' is a slight restatement of the append redirect but functions as a real exclusion, so there is minimal waste.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers the decision policy well but omits the mechanics an agent needs for a destructive call — reversibility, effect on the surrounding log, and result/error behavior — leaving clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 50% and entry_id — the required parameter — has no description at all. The description discusses entry content ('wrong task, a decision never made') but gives no guidance on identifying or sourcing the entry_id, so it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 title supplies the verb+resource ('Remove a log entry') and the description sharpens it with the decisive criterion for removal ('wrong when written'). It also contrasts against the append path for superseded entries, so an agent can distinguish it from log_entry without opening a schema. It never states 'deletes' in the description body itself, but the combined title/description is unambiguous.
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?
Explicit when-to-use ('entry that was wrong when written'), when-not ('overtaken by later work is history, not wrong: append instead'), and an additional exclusion ('Not for tidying'). The agent is given both the trigger and the redirect to an alternative behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.