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

The description explicitly states permanent deletion, irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), and cascading removal of analytics data. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, which the agent can use to anticipate side effects.

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 adding critical information with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by irreversibility and cascade effects. This is efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations already indicating destructive and read-only behavior, the description covers what the agent needs: what is deleted, that it is permanent, and that analytics data is also removed. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the one parameter, workout_id, with a clear description. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (logged workout), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_routine and delete_template by focusing on workouts. 'Logged workout' clearly signals the target resource without ambiguity.

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 makes clear this tool is for deleting workouts, not for updating or creating them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use update_workout to modify instead', but the context is clear and no exclusion is needed for this simple destructive action.

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