delete_hours

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action 'delete' without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It does not address permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, error conditions, or response format, which are essential for a destructive operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it lacks front-loaded critical information like behavioral risks or usage context.

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 a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for missing structured data by explaining parameters, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'hours_id' undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'hours_id' represents (e.g., an identifier for a time entry) or its format, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.

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 'Delete hours entry' restates the tool name 'delete_hours' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'hours entry', but lacks detail on what constitutes an hours entry or the scope of deletion, failing to distinguish meaningfully from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'update_hours'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing hours entry), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'update_hours' or 'get_hours_entry', leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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