garmin_workout_delete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds what those annotations cannot: the deletion is irreversible, it also removes the workout from the calendar, and it requires a human confirmation step. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the irreversibility warning, then the confirmation workflow. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the safety and confirmation context an agent needs. The only gap is not explicitly ruling out unschedule as the alternative when the user merely wants the workout off the calendar.

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 100% and the schema's own field description already says "From garmin_workouts_list," so the description's ID provenance note largely repeats structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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 and resource ("Permanently delete a workout from Garmin Connect") and adds scope ("including from the calendar"), which distinguishes it from garmin_workout_unschedule in the sibling list. An agent can pick it out without opening the schema.

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 a clear precondition (obtain explicit user go-ahead after naming the workout) and constrains the ID source to garmin_workouts_list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with garmin_workout_unschedule, though "including from the calendar" implicitly signals the broader scope.

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