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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds valuable context: the Garmin copy is also removed. This discloses an important side effect beyond the basic deletion, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action and condition. It delivers the essential information efficiently.

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 delete operation with one parameter and an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers the core behavior and a notable side effect. It doesn't specify error behavior for completed workouts, but that is not necessary for a correct call.

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 only parameter, workout_id, is a UUID and is self-explanatory from its name. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's type/format. Given the simplicity of the parameter, a 3 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?

The description states the specific action (delete/skip), the resource (workout), and a critical condition (uncompleted). It also discloses a side effect (Garmin copy removal). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mark_workout_completed or move_workout.

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 restricts usage to uncompleted workouts, giving an agent a clear criterion for when to call it. It does not name the alternative for completed workouts, but the constraint is strong enough to guide selection.

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