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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the destructive/permanent nature ('for good'), the confirm gate, and the client-side consequence (loss of access). It omits permissions needed and what a successful deletion returns.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action and its permanence, then the alternative. No wasted words.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: permanence, the confirm requirement, and the safer alternative. Only minor gaps remain (auth requirements, success response).

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 confirm parameter is already documented in the schema, while planId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description reinforces 'confirm-gated' but adds no syntax or meaning for planId beyond what the schema implies.

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 (delete) and resource (workout plan), reinforced by scope ('for good') and a consequence ('client loses access'). It differentiates the resource from the similarly named delete_workout_plan_template, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-not guidance: 'prefer editing unless the coach clearly wants it gone,' which implies update_workout_plan as the alternative. The condition selecting the alternative is clear, though the alternate tool is not named outright.

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