Delete time entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: it never touches a running timer, and it deletes billed entries with loss of invoice record. It also indicates a return report. However, it doesn't explicitly state that deletion is irreversible, though that is implied by the delete verb.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediate caveats. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage, side effects, and alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information.

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 covers the single parameter (id) with a description. The tool description restates 'by id' but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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?

States the action (delete), the resource (logged entry), the identifier (by id), and differentiates from siblings by noting it doesn't touch a running timer and that billed entries are affected, contrasting with entry_edit. This clearly distinguishes it from entry_edit and timer tools.

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?

Explicitly warns against using on billed entries because it loses the invoice record, directing to entry_edit instead. Also clarifies it doesn't affect running timers, so it's safe in that context. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a specific alternative.

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