redmine_delete_time_entryDelete an existing Redmine time entry permanently. Provide the time entry ID to remove it; this action cannot be undone.
Delete a time entry from Redmine. This action is irreversible.
Args:
time_entry_id: Time entry ID to delete (required)
Returns: Confirmation of deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time_entry_id | Yes | Time entry ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it destructive and non-read-only; the description adds that the action is irreversible and that it returns a confirmation. It does not address edge cases such as deleting a non-existent entry or permission failures.
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 compact and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence and argument carries informational weight and there is no filler.
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 one-parameter destructive action this is complete: it identifies the required input, warns about irreversibility, and states the return value. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool safely, especially with the annotations already declaring destructiveness.
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% and the description repeats the schema's 'Time entry ID to delete' within the Args block. It adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description uses a specific verb (Delete), resource (time entry), and scope (from Redmine). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like redmine_update_time_entry and redmine_create_time_entry.
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 given on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or permission requirements. The only signal is the operation itself, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.