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

The destructive annotation already warns about mutating behavior, and the description adds valuable scoping: deleting sets does not delete the session, and duplicate removal keeps the first occurrence. This is consistent with annotations, with no contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place by clarifying scope or usage. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the main scenarios and effectively communicates the destructive scope. A minor gap is that all parameters are optional per the schema, and the description does not state what happens if neither exercise nor duplicates_only is provided; however, the parameter docs handle most formatting and defaults.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful purpose to the parameters: duplicates_only maps to undoing a double-sent log and exercise maps to removing a mistaken movement. This helps an agent choose the right parameter more confidently.

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 ('Remove') and a precise resource ('sets from a session'), while explicitly scoping the behavior with 'without touching the session itself.' This clearly distinguishes it from a full-session deletion tool like delete_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?

It gives explicit usage scenarios: 'duplicates_only' for a log sent twice and 'exercise' to drop an incorrectly entered movement. It does not explicitly name a sibling like delete_workout as the alternative for deleting the whole session, though 'without touching the session itself' implies that boundary.

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