delete_time_entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context the annotations cannot carry: the action is irreversible, Gryzzly has no undo, and the call refuses to run unless confirm is true. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure needed for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences: action, risk/gating constraint, then alternative path. The most important operational facts are front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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, schema-backed tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, the id source, the irreversibility and confirm requirement, and the correct sibling for corrections. Nothing material 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, but the description adds provenance for the id parameter ('as returned by list_time_entries') that the schema does not provide. The confirm semantics ('refuses to run without confirm true') largely restate the schema, keeping this just short of a 5.

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 one time declaration by its id') and ties the identifier to its source ('as returned by list_time_entries'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_time_entry, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit alternative with the selecting condition: 'Use update_time_entry instead to correct a duration, day, task or description.' It also sets the precondition that the person must see and agree to the deletion before calling, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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