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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility ('for good'), the client-side impact (loss of access), and the confirm gate, but says nothing about permissions/authorization, cascading effects on history or assignments, or error behavior for a destructive operation.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and permanence before the alternative-tool guidance. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does cover permanence, client impact, the confirm gate, and the preferred alternative. It stops short of permission requirements and side effects, but is largely sufficient for a two-parameter delete tool.

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 only 50%: confirm is documented in the schema, while planId has no description anywhere. The phrase 'confirm-gated' merely restates the schema's own confirm semantics and adds no meaning for the undocumented planId, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource (delete a diet plan) with permanent scope made explicit ('for good'). It also states the consequence ('the client loses access to it'), which separates it from the template/workout delete siblings and from update_diet_plan.

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?

Gives a clear default-avoidance rule ('prefer editing unless the coach clearly wants it gone'), which effectively steers the agent to update_diet_plan. The alternative is described by intent ('editing') rather than named, so the mapping to the sibling still requires a small inference.

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