tempo_delete_worklog

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, openWorld=true), it discloses the read-before-confirm behavior, that an unknown id fails at preview with Tempo's not-found error and nothing is deleted, the preview payload contents, and the two-step confirmToken fallback. This is exactly the behavioral detail 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?

The operation is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences carry non-redundant detail about the destructive edge case, error timing, and confirmation flow. It is dense but every sentence earns its place for a destructive tool; the final sentence is long but justified by the protocol it documents.

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 still conveys the preview contents, error behavior, and confirmation requirements. For a destructive operation with three parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by characterizing bypassPeriodClosuresAndApprovals as able to 'rip a worklog out of an already-approved timesheet' and by clarifying the confirmToken's role in the preview flow, though the schema already documents these fields heavily.

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 worklog) with the identifying parameter (by id), which cleanly separates it from siblings like tempo_get_worklog, tempo_update_worklog, and tempo_delete_plan. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It specifies when the dangerous bypass flag applies (ripping a worklog out of an approved timesheet) and lays out the exact confirmation protocol the caller must follow. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent might pick instead, so it is context-rich but not fully alternative-aware.

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