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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it declares the operation is permanent/irreversible, notes the confirm gate, and discloses blast radius (assigned client plans are untouched). It omits permissions/authorization requirements and any error or cascade behavior beyond assigned plans.

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 the destructive verb and permanence front-loaded, the confirm gate second, and the side-effect clarification last. 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?

For a two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential concerns (destruction, confirmation flow, blast radius). It stops short of noting authorization needs or failure modes, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 50%: 'confirm' is fully documented in the schema, and the description only echoes it as 'confirm-gated'. The required 'id' parameter gets no added meaning from the description or schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage and the description adding little beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a workout plan template') that is unambiguous against siblings like delete_workout_plan and delete_diet_plan_template. The second sentence further pins down scope by clarifying what is not affected.

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 '(confirm-gated)' note implies a two-step preview/execute flow, which is procedural guidance, but the description never says when to choose this over alternatives such as update_workout_plan_template or deactivating. Usage is only inferred.

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