Remove a workout

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the exact failure response for a stale or non-activity id (data.ok false, reason item_not_found, message listing the day's activities) and clarifies that the top-level ok only confirms the call ran. This response-field semantics is not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads verb and resource, then layers id source and error semantics; every clause carries information, though the second half is a long semicolon-heavy run-on that slightly taxes readability.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, it supplies the key missing pieces (id provenance, idempotent error behavior, ok-means-ran caveat). The only omission is explicit routing to preview_removal as an alternative.

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 already 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine meaning by telling the agent where row_id originates (get_day or add_activity), reducing the chance of passing a food row's 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a logged activity') and pins the exact identifier source ('activities[].row_id in get_day, or from add_activity'), which cleanly separates it from sibling bulk operations like remove_items and from add_activity.

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 clear context for when it applies (you have a row_id for an activity on the day) and reassures that repeats are safe. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as preview_removal or remove_items, so a 4 rather than 5.

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