delete_plan

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility ('Permanently'), the ownership restriction (USER_TRAINING_PLAN only), and the confirmation requirement. It omits side effects such as what happens to workouts or data referencing the deleted plan, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive nature plus scope constraint are front-loaded ahead of the confirmation caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers permanence, ownership scope, and the confirmation workflow. The only material gap is guidance on how to source a valid plan_id.

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?

The single parameter plan_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'own training plan (USER_TRAINING_PLAN only)' implicitly constrains what plan_id may be (a user-owned plan, not a catalog plan), but it never says where to obtain the id or what happens with an invalid or non-owned id.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Permanently deletes') and narrows the scope with '(USER_TRAINING_PLAN only)', which distinguishes it from plan-related siblings like get_available_plans and get_plan. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for non-owned plans, but an agent can still tell what this tool does.

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?

Provides an explicit usage precondition: 'Only after the user has confirmed.' That is genuinely actionable guidance for a destructive tool. It does not state when-not to use it or point to alternatives such as save_plan for modifying rather than removing a plan.

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