Removes a logged work time record from Redmine permanently. Use it to correct or cancel an existing time entry by its ID; this action cannot be undone.
作業時間の記録を削除する(取り消し不可)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time_entry_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the critical behavioral trait that the deletion is irreversible (取り消し不可). However, it does not mention permissions, whether the deletion is hard or soft, or any other side effects. Given the simplicity of the operation, disclosing irreversibility is the most important behavioral note, so a 4 is appropriate.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and appends the critical irreversibility warning. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool.
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 core purpose and the key behavioral trait (irreversibility), and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should ideally explain what time_entry_id is or where to obtain it, and it lacks any usage context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no information about the single required parameter time_entry_id. While the parameter name itself is fairly self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema's name and type already convey.
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 verb (削除する = delete) and a specific resource (作業時間の記録 = time entry record), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_time_entry, update_time_entry, and list_time_entries. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_time_entry or delete_issue. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only extra information is the irreversibility note, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.