tempo_delete_plan

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them, disclosing the two-phase confirmation behavior, the phase-1 preview+confirmToken response shape, the rule that the token must be approved and never invented or reused, and that it is ignored under elicitation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the confirmation mechanism in a single dense second sentence. Appropriately sized for a destructive tool; the long second clause is information-dense rather than redundant, though it could be split for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the phase-1 response contains (preview + confirmToken) and the proceed condition. The mutation and confirmation contract is complete, though it could briefly note the state of a successfully deleted plan or error behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'id' and 'confirmToken' thoroughly. The description mentions 'by id' and alludes to the token but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a Tempo plan (resource allocation) by id'), clearly distinguishing it from the many sibling get/create/update/delete tools. The parenthetical disambiguation of 'plan' as a resource allocation removes ambiguity against team/worklog/account deletes.

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 confirmation protocol functions as strong usage guidance: it tells the agent a first call may not delete, that a preview/confirmToken round-trip is required in fallback mode, and references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings like tempo_update_plan, but delete vs. read/update is self-evident.

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