tempo_delete_plan

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the two-step confirmation fallback, the preview and confirmToken mechanism, and the requirement that the token come from the phase-1 response. This goes well beyond the annotations and meaningfully informs the agent's calling sequence.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and then provides the necessary confirmation details without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the destructive action, both confirmation modes, and the token-based fallback, which is the core complexity of this tool. It does not describe the post-deletion response or error cases, but the essential calling contract is present and the annotations cover the destructive nature.

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%, and the confirmToken parameter already has a detailed description covering its lifecycle and restrictions. The tool description adds only a reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE and the notion of a preview, so it does not materially exceed what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Delete'), a specific resource ('Tempo plan (resource allocation)'), and the key selector ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tempo_update_plan, tempo_get_plan, and tempo_delete_worklog.

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 clearly explains the confirmation protocol: the first call triggers a prompt or preview, and only a repeat call with the confirmToken proceeds. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the delete action and confirmation flow provide clear context for when and how to invoke it.

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