Delete workout file

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the source of file_id (device_files/attachment_files) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility or permission requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word earns its place: it states what happens, with which identifier, and where to obtain that identifier, with no fluff or repetition.

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, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: the action, the target, and data provenance. It omits explicit mention of consequences (e.g., permanent deletion) but that is already implied by destructiveHint=true. The athlete param for coach accounts is in the schema, so the description is reasonably 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so no heavy compensation is needed. The tool description reinforces the meaning of file_id by linking it to tp_get_workout, but adds no extra meaning for workout_id or athlete, which are adequately explained in 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 clearly states the action ('Delete a workout file') and the required resource ('by file_id'), with a direct reference to obtaining the ID from tp_get_workout. It distinguishes the tool from related file operations like upload/download and from tp_delete_workout by specifying 'workout file'.

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 implicit guidance by telling users to get file_id from tp_get_workout, which implies a prerequisite call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when you want to keep a copy) or mention the optional athlete parameter for coach accounts.

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