delete_coach_data

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, so the description earns credit by specifying precisely what is destroyed versus preserved — job, proposal, history and sharing flag go; usage count and consent stay, with consent withdrawal happening in the app. It does not say whether the deletion is recoverable or what it returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, no filler: the destructive scope is front-loaded and the preservation caveats follow. Every clause carries information the agent needs (what is destroyed, what survives).

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: the exact blast radius and the two explicit carve-outs. It could add irreversibility/recovery expectations, but nothing essential to call it correctly is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema carries no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs. The description instead scopes the operation via prose, which is the right allocation for a no-arg tool.

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 scope ('make the server forget everything the Coach holds for this profile') and then enumerates exactly what falls inside that scope: job, waiting proposal, history, sharing flag. This is clearly distinguishable from the read_coach / write_coach_* / admin_coach_* siblings, which operate on coach data without deleting it.

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?

It defines the boundaries of the operation ('Today's usage count stays', 'Consent itself is kept in the profile and is withdrawn in the app'), which implicitly tells the agent this is NOT a full profile/consent erase. But it never says when to reach for this tool versus write_coach_resolve, admin_coach_disconnect, or admin_delete_user, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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