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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is irreversible ('This cannot be undone'), cascades to schedules and the user's Garmin device, and fails when duplicates exist, listing matches for disambiguation. It also mandates a user-confirmation protocol. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the most critical facts (permanence, irreversibility, cascade) and then structured around user confirmation, arguments, and duplicate handling. Each section is purposeful; no filler or repetition beyond reinforcing the irreversibility.

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 destructive tool with a required confirmation step and ambiguity handling, the description covers prerequisites, argument semantics, failure mode, and retry guidance. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. There are no significant missing pieces for an agent to invoke this safely.

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%, but the description adds value by noting that workout_name is case insensitive, folder_name is optional and uses 'My Workouts' for un-folder workouts, and by explaining the failure/retry flow when names are ambiguous. These details go beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a workout template.' It clearly distinguishes the action from siblings like create_workout and update_workout, and explicitly notes the cascade to schedules and the Garmin device, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear invocation context: always confirm with the user, state exact name/folder, get explicit approval before calling. It also explains how to disambiguate duplicate names and instructs to ask the user which entry is meant. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but for a delete operation the primary guardrails are present.

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