delete_bodyweight

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: that the deletion is recorded and propagated so synced devices drop the entry, and that it can reappear from a stale-version device with unsynced changes or an edit racing the sync. This resurrection behavior is non-obvious and valuable; only auth requirements are unaddressed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first short sentence, followed by one information-dense sentence about sync consequences. The second sentence is long and semicolon-heavy but every clause carries real behavioral content, so little is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose plus meaningful propagation/resurrection behavior. Nothing critical is missing, though it stops short of describing response or failure behavior.

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%: the single 'date' parameter is fully documented as 'YYYY-MM-DD (the profile's local calendar day)'. The description's 'weigh-in of a day' loosely reinforces the date scoping but adds no format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Delete the weigh-in of a day' — which clearly separates it from the write/read bodyweight siblings. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or scope boundary (e.g. vs write_bodyweight or delete_measurement), leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_bodyweight (which can likely overwrite a value) or delete_measurement. The second sentence describes consequences of deletion, not guidance on selection, so usage remains unguided.

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