delete_blood_pressure

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is structurally known; the description reinforces this with 'IRREVERSIBLE' and adds the confirmation workflow, which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of describing post-delete effects or error behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the irreversible warning. The warning is run together with the parameter note rather than separated, but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical concerns: what to delete, where the identifier comes from, and the irreversibility. The unexplained required cdate parameter is the only notable gap.

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%: cdate is documented in the schema, version is not. The description compensates partially by explaining that version identifies a reading sourced from getBloodPressure, but it says nothing about cdate, which is also required.

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 ('deletes one reading') plus the scoping unit ('by its version'), which cleanly separates it from the bulk delete siblings like delete_weigh_ins. The reference to getBloodPressure clearly identifies the domain object.

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?

Tells the agent where the required version comes from (getBloodPressure) and adds an explicit precondition to confirm with the user before calling. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the source-of-value guidance removes the main ambiguity.

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