delete_workout

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: deletion only occurs when confirm=true, and without confirm it performs a dry-run ('reports what would be removed and does nothing'). This goes beyond the schema and is valuable safety-critical information. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the dry-run behavior is the most important aspect.

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?

Efficiently structured with a clear action statement followed by an Args block. Every sentence contributes value: the one-line purpose, the arg explanations, and the important two-step rule. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no annotations, the description covers the core behavioral contract: the confirm guard, the dry-run behavior, and the relationship to create_workout. An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. It omits potential edge cases (e.g., invalid workout_id) but is otherwise complete for typical usage.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains workout_id as 'The id returned by create_workout' and confirm as 'Must be true to actually delete,' adding essential semantics that the schema (type/default) does not convey.

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+resource: 'Remove a workout from the athlete's Garmin library.' It clearly identifies the action and object, and positions itself as the inverse of create_workout, distinguishing it from sibling read-oriented tools.

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?

Explicitly characterizes this as 'The undo for create_workout,' providing clear contextual linkage. Also explains the two-step confirm rule, which is essential for safe invocation. Does not list alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the appropriate usage clear.

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