mfp_delete_fast

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Destructive and not recoverable.' It adds useful context about irreversibility and the inability to list existing fasts, which goes beyond the basic destructiveHint flag.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded. It has a clear purpose sentence, a key warning, id provenance, and a structured Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds necessary 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?

The description covers purpose, destructive nature, id provenance, no-list limitation, and return type. It lacks details about error handling or response_format options, but given the simple one-parameter API and output schema (response_format enum), the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The Args line only repeats parameter names (id, response_format) without explaining response_format's behavior. The id source constraint is valuable and goes beyond the schema, but given 0% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented response_format parameter.

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+resource: 'Delete a fasting entry by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_delete_custom_food and mfp_update_fast.

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 description gives explicit context on when this tool can be used: it requires an id from mfp_log_fast or the MFP app because no read endpoint exists to list fasts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the no-list constraint is clear usage guidance.

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