tempo_delete_worklog

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the bypass flag can 'rip' a worklog out of an approved timesheet, and the confirmation flow prevents accidental deletion. This discloses high-risk consequences and operational requirements beyond the annotation.

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?

Two dense sentences carry essential information: the core action, the dangerous bypass flag, and the full confirmation protocol. Every sentence earns its place, with safety warnings appropriately front-loaded before the procedural details.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema and a two-step confirmation requirement, the description covers the confirmation modes, preview response, confirmToken handshake, and the bypass flag's consequences. It doesn't specify success/failure response details, but that is acceptable given the complexity and the existing coverage.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the real-world impact of bypassPeriodClosuresAndApprovals and the confirmToken's role in the two-step process. This enriches understanding of when and how to set these parameters.

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 opens with 'Delete a Tempo worklog by id,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from tempo_create_worklog, tempo_update_worklog, and the various get/search siblings. The required id parameter leaves no ambiguity about the target resource.

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 gives clear context on when the tool is used (to delete by id) and explains the two confirmation modes and the bypass flag's implications. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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