clockodo_clock_delete

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

Annotations mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds crucial specifics: it discards unbooked time, does NOT save a time entry, and requires user confirmation. This goes well beyond what annotations already convey and clearly warns about data loss.

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 short sentences front-load the destructive action and its most important consequence, then provide the alternative and confirmation requirement. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers what happens, what does not happen, the need for confirmation, and how to preserve tracked time. It loses a point because the alternative tool name is inaccurate relative to the sibling list, which weakens otherwise complete guidance.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an important workflow detail — 'Ask the user to confirm' — and reinforces that 'confirm' is a destructive-confirmation flag, adding useful semantic context beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states a specific action ('STOPS the running clock') and its consequence ('DISCARDS the unbooked time'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from saving or keeping an entry. This prevents confusion with the sibling clockodo_delete_entry and makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool ('To keep tracked time, use ... instead') and instructs to ask the user for confirmation. However, it names 'clockodo_update' as the alternative, while the sibling list contains 'clockodo_update_entry' — an inaccurate reference that could mislead tool selection.

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