Delete time entry

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds important behavioral details beyond that: it reports project and hours removed, never touches a running timer, and deletes billed entries along with their invoice record. These are meaningful side effects the agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action and result, the running-timer safety guarantee, and the billed-entry caveat with the correct alternative. It is tightly written and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the action, the return information, the key non-effects, and the irreversible consequence. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'id' with 'Entry id from entry_list', so 100% coverage is present. The description adds 'by id' but does not meaningfully expand on the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete'), a specific resource ('one logged entry by id'), and the observable effect ('report the project and hours removed'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like entry_edit and entry_add.

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 covers when to use the tool (deleting a logged entry) and when not to: it warns that billed entries lose their invoice record and directs the agent to use entry_edit instead. This is strong usage guidance with an explicit alternative.

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