delete_weigh_ins

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses the internal call chain (getDailyWeighIns then per-entry deleteWeighIn), the guard that can leave the operation a no-op, the return value (null vs. count), and flags IRREVERSIBLE with an instruction to confirm with the user. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the mechanism, but the IRREVERSIBLE warning is duplicated almost verbatim and the 'no HTTP path of its own' detail is implementation trivia. The formatting is rough and repetitive, costing 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return value (null or count) and the side effects, which is the key thing an agent needs. The conditional deleteAll behavior is functional but phrased densely, leaving a little ambiguity about the exact branch that deletes all entries.

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, but deleteAll has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining the conditional role deleteAll plays (it gates deletion when multiple entries exist), giving the undocumented parameter real meaning.

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+resource (deletes weigh-ins on a given date) and distinguishes itself from the singular sibling delete_weigh_in by being the day-wide/bulk variant. The guard logic (loops per entry, requires deleteAll when multiple exist) makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for when it proceeds versus deletes nothing (zero entries, or multiple entries without deleteAll), which tells the agent when the call is a no-op. It does not explicitly name delete_weigh_in as the alternative for single-entry deletion, so routing is left partly to inference.

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