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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds context about why deletion is appropriate (drag on weight trend and waist rule), and implies the action is irreversible in a practical sense. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the consequence.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose and trigger condition are front-loaded, and the rationale is concise. Every word 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 delete tool with destructive hint, the description covers the why and when. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but no output schema exists and such details are not essential for a simple delete. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 clearly states the action (Delete), the specific resource (body measurement), and the condition (logged by mistake). It also gives a concrete reason (two entries on one date drag the trend), distinguishing it from other delete 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?

The description explains when to use it (for erroneous measurements) and implicitly when not to (for valid ones). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of logging over is mentioned, which guides the agent. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with log_body_measurement.

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