delete_weigh_ins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a deletion, but it does not disclose that deletion is likely irreversible, that delete_all defaults to true, or what the response/outcome will be. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of schema fields beyond what is useful.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter formats. However, it omits behavioral context that matters for a delete operation, such as irreversibility, the default effect of delete_all, and what happens when delete_all is false. These gaps keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by specifying the exact date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and explaining delete_all as 'Whether to delete all measurements for the day.' It could clarify the false case (what gets deleted instead), but overall it meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete weight measurements for a specific date.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the get_weigh_ins and add_weigh_in siblings, and the date scope is explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when deleting weight measurements for a date. There are no competing delete weigh-in tools among siblings, so no explicit alternative routing is necessary. However, it does not state any cautions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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