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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it states permanence, that the active routine is cleared if applicable, and that this cannot be undone. It also clarifies that templates are not cascade-deleted, which is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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 short sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action, the active-routine side effect, and the non-deletion of templates. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important fact is 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical call-time knowledge: permanence, active-routine clearing, and the boundary of what is not deleted. No additional context is required for a caller to understand the consequences of invoking it.

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 coverage is 100%, with routine_id described as 'Routine ID to delete,' so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra detail about the ID format or where to obtain it, which is acceptable but does not elevate the score above the baseline.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete a routine,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_template and delete_workout. It also clarifies the scope by stating that templates referenced by the routine are NOT deleted, which further sharpens the purpose.

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 implies usage: use this when you want to permanently remove a routine. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as update_routine or set_active_routine, nor does it state when not to use it. The intended context is inferable from the name and effects, but not directly articulated.

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