Permanently remove a worklog entry from a Yandex Tracker issue by providing the issue ID and worklog ID; requires user confirmation before deleting data.
Удалить запись трудозатрат. Необратимо изменяет данные; подтвердите задачу и идентификатор записи с пользователем.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes | ||
| worklog_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating the change is irreversible and that user confirmation of both identifiers is required before proceeding, though it omits permission or error-handling behavior.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the destructive warning plus confirmation requirement follow immediately.
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 simple two-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the action, its irreversibility, and the need for user confirmation, while annotations supply the safety profile and an output schema exists. It could still mention authorization requirements or post-deletion state, so it falls just short of fully complete.
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 compensate. It partially does by mapping the two identifiers to a user-facing "task" (issue_id) and "record ID" (worklog_id) and requiring confirmation, but it adds no format details or constraints for either parameter.
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 specific verb and resource: "Удалить запись трудозатрат" (Delete a worklog entry). This operation is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like add_worklog, update_worklog, and list_worklogs without needing to name them.
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 provides one clear usage rule — confirm the issue and worklog ID with the user before deleting — which is valuable for a destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus update_worklog or how to recover from an erroneous deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.