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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), cascading effects ('removes it from any schedules and from the user's Garmin device'), a hard constraint (app default workouts), and the atomic behavior on name collisions.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, then cascading effects, then constraints, then parameter notes. Every sentence carries distinct information (undoability, schedule/device cleanup, defaults, collision handling) with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary; the description fully covers the mutation semantics, side effects, preconditions, and error behavior an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: workout_name matching is case insensitive, and the special sentinel value 'My Workouts' for folderless workouts is explained in prose. This is slightly richer than the schema text alone.

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 user-approved workout template.' The 'Permanently' qualifier and 'workout template' scope immediately distinguish it from siblings like update_workout, create_workout, and get_workout_detail.

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 clear preconditions for a successful call ('user-approved', 'App default workouts cannot be deleted') and explains the duplicate-name failure path. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with an alternative tool or say when to prefer this over update_workout, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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