clickup_time_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation ('permanently delete', 'destructive and irreversible', 'removed from reports'), which is critical for a deletion tool. It also describes the return value ('empty object on success'). The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about permissions or error conditions, though the input schema hints at ownership requirements.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core action, second provides critical behavioral warnings and sibling differentiation, third describes the return value. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information (destructive deletion).

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, behavioral impact (destructive/irreversible), sibling differentiation, and return value. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention authentication requirements or error responses, though the input schema hints at permission constraints for the timer_id parameter.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (team_id and timer_id) with their descriptions, types, and requirements. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('recorded time tracking entry'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool clickup_time_stop which stops a timer without deletion. The verb 'delete' is precise and the object 'time tracking entry' is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to permanently delete a recorded time tracking entry') and when not to use it ('to stop a currently running timer, use clickup_time_stop instead'). It names the alternative tool and explains the functional difference (deletion vs. preservation).

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