delete_activity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's burden is lower, and it still adds real value: the 204/null return contract and, critically, that the effect is IRREVERSIBLE. The probe/fixture narrative adds a little assurance but is mostly meta-commentary about how the tool was tested rather than about the tool itself.

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?

It is back-loaded: it opens with the return value ('resolves to null on success (204)') before stating purpose or the irreversible warning. The 'Live-verified on synthetic fixtures created by the probe itself' clause is internal process detail that does not help an agent decide or invoke, and it consumes a large share of an otherwise short definition.

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 single-param destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the core needs – irreversibility and the success signal – are present. What is missing is a plain purpose statement and any hint of failure modes (e.g., what happens for a nonexistent or already-deleted activityId), leaving the definition just adequate.

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?

One parameter (activityId) at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it ('Numeric id'). The description says nothing about the parameter's format, valid ranges, or whether string IDs are accepted, so it adds nothing beyond the schema – the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 verb+resource are carried by the name and reinforced by 'delete' semantics ('resolves to null on success', 'IRREVERSIBLE'). It never states a clean purpose sentence, so an agent infers deletion from the name and behavioral cues rather than an explicit statement, and there is no sibling differentiation from delete_workout / delete_calendar_event / delete_gear.

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?

It gives one actionable directive – 'confirm with the user before calling' – which is genuine usage guidance for a destructive op. But there is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no routing between this and the many sibling delete_* tools; usage must be inferred from the name.

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