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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the plan requirement ('Pro feature'), which is genuinely extra context, but says nothing about permanence, what data is removed with the goal, or the irreversibility of the action.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the plan constraint appended. No wasted wording, though the content volume is thin for a destructive operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema covers the single parameter fully. However, for a destructive tool the description omits whether deletion is permanent and what happens to associated progress or time entries, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap.

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% and the single id parameter is documented with its source (get_goal_progress). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Delete an activity goal' names a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from create_goal and update_goal by action. It stops short of stating the scope of deletion (permanent removal vs. archival or the effect on goal progress history).

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_goal, and no exclusion guidance. The only usage-relevant note is the 'Pro feature' gating, which is a prerequisite rather than routing guidance.

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