Delete workout

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true. The description adds context by emphasizing 'irreversible' and specifying that it applies to both planned and completed workouts—useful behavioral details beyond the raw hint. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a caveat and a parameter hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 delete operation with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, irreversibility, and parameter sourcing. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%; 'athlete' is described but 'workout_id' is not. The description compensates for 'workout_id' by telling the agent to obtain it from tp_get_workouts, adding practical meaning. The 'athlete' parameter remains covered by 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a workout from the calendar.' It also clarifies scope ('planned and completed workouts alike'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_update_workout or tp_create_workout.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by instructing to get the 'Workout ID from tp_get_workouts,' which establishes a necessary prerequisite and workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident from the destructive scope.

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