productive-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Permanently delete,' which implies a destructive, irreversible action, but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if entry_id is invalid), side effects, or confirmation steps. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Permanently delete a time entry.') and parameter details following. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Args' section could be integrated more seamlessly into a single sentence for better flow.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like error handling or permissions, leaving gaps for effective agent invocation.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that specifies 'entry_id: Time entry ID,' adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only lists 'Entry Id' as the title. This clarifies the parameter's purpose, compensating for the schema's lack of detail. However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., numeric vs. string) or provide examples.

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 action ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a time entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'productive_update_time_entry' or 'productive_list_time_entries', which would require mentioning it's specifically for removal rather than modification or retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing time entry), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion), or comparisons to siblings like 'productive_update_time_entry' for modifications or 'productive_list_time_entries' for viewing entries before deletion.

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