delete_heart_rate_zones

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the wire mechanism (changeState: "DELETED"), the resulting state (fallback to DEFAULT), two refusal/error behaviors (DEFAULT refused, throws for a sport with no profile), and an explicit irreversibility warning. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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?

Terse and front-loaded, with the consequence stated first and the safety warning last. The final clause runs together without punctuation ('doing nothing IRREVERSIBLE'), a minor structure flaw, but no sentence 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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers behavior, error cases, and irreversibility well. The only gap is the lack of detail on valid sport values besides the refused DEFAULT.

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% for the single 'sport' parameter, so the description must compensate. It usefully reveals that 'DEFAULT' is a special value that is refused, but says nothing about the expected name/format for other sports, leaving the parameter only partially characterized.

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 (delete) and resource (heart rate zones / stored profile) and explains the observable effect: the profile is removed and the sport falls back to DEFAULT. This distinguishes it cleanly from set_heart_rate_zones and get_heart_rate_zones.

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 instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling and warns that sport=DEFAULT is refused. It gives clear context for when the tool applies, though it does not name sibling alternatives (set_/get_) as the fallback path.

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