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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description adds two genuinely useful facts: past runs are preserved in history, and the call previews unless confirm:true. That tells the agent exactly what is and isn't destroyed, which the annotation alone does not.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and the scope, followed by the durability note and the confirm gate. Slightly parenthetical-heavy but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema, and the description doesn't say what the preview actually returns, whether the owning coach/permission is required, or whether attached steps/approvals cascade. For a destructive operation with only destructiveHint to lean on, these gaps matter.

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 50%; the one documented parameter (confirm) already carries its full semantics in the schema, and the description merely restates the gating rule. The undocumented parameter (id) is self-evident, so no penalty is warranted, but the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete one of the coach's workflows") and scopes it to the coach's own workflows rather than gym workflows. It doesn't explicitly name the nearest sibling (delete_gym_workflow), but the possessive scoping gives a working discriminator.

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?

Usage is implied by the name plus the confirm-gating note — the agent learns it must pass confirm:true to actually delete. There's no statement of when to use this versus delete_gym_workflow or when deletion is inappropriate (e.g. active workflows), so guidance stops at the mechanism.

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