delete_workout

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the two-call confirmation gate, that the first call is a non-destructive read returning the workout name, and that deletion is permanent. It also disambiguates the blast radius by excluding recorded activities.

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 permanence warning is front-loaded and the Args block is tight. The sentence "This asks before it acts, and the check is real rather than advisory" is somewhat redundant with the explanation that follows, costing a little efficiency without losing clarity.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema, everything needed is present: mutation semantics, the confirmation protocol, the failure mode of an unconfirmed call, and the exact value to pass. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema apart from the one fact the workflow depends on.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does it: workout_id is sourced from list_workouts or create_workout, and confirm is defined precisely as "the workout's exact name, which the first call returns" — including that it is empty on the first call. No ambiguity remains about either 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a workout") and immediately scopes it: it removes a workout-library plan, not a recorded activity, which separates it from update_activity and get_activity_details. The two-step confirm behavior also distinguishes it from sibling mutations like update_workout and unschedule_workout.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool acts and when it does not ("the first call never deletes"), plus the required human-in-the-loop protocol ("Show the person what is about to go"). It also gives a negative case ("Recorded activities are untouchable here") and points at list_workouts / create_workout for sourcing the ID.

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