delete_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, soft, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It does not mention side effects or error conditions. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short (two sentences) and begins with the main purpose. However, it uses an Args section that is redundant given the schema, and could be merged into a single line. It is adequate but not optimally structured.

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?

Despite a declared output schema, the description does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or error handling. Combined with low schema coverage and missing behavioral cues, the tool feels underspecified for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 sole parameter 'entry_id' is described only as 'ID of the time entry to delete', which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type and title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not clarify format, source, or constraints.

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 'Delete a time entry' clearly states the action and resource. It uses a specific verb and noun, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'delete_activity', which also deletes a time-related entity, missing a chance to clarify scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_activity' or 'stop_tracking'. It lacks prerequisites, conditions, or examples of appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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