delete_timesheet

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

Annotations already flag destructiveness, and the description adds important context: the deletion is permanent, requires a hard-delete configuration, and corresponds to a specific command format ('DELETE TIMESHEET <id>'). This meaningfully extends the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite and command format are compactly stated. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 two required parameters, the description omits essential guidance on the confirmation parameter, which is likely critical for safe invocation. It also does not explain how to know whether hard-delete config is enabled or what happens if it is not. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable, but parameter guidance remains incomplete.

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 explain both required parameters. It implicitly maps line_id to the '<id>' in 'DELETE TIMESHEET <id>', but it never explains the confirmation parameter's purpose, expected value, or format, leaving a critical input undocumented.

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 clear action ('delete') and resource ('time', i.e., timesheet), and adds 'permanently' to disambiguate from soft operations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling delete/archive tools and uses 'time' rather than 'timesheet', which is slightly informal.

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 a precondition ('Requires hard-delete config') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_timesheet or archive_task. It also does not clarify when not to use it or what the confirmation parameter should contain.

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