delete_custom_exercise

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description goes well beyond them by detailing exactly what is destroyed (routines, favourites, remembered weights), what is preserved (logged workout sets, with name/muscles copied onto them), and the sync/deletion-propagation plus resurrection edge case. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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-loaded with the action ('Delete a custom exercise'), then dense cascade detail. The final openGym sync sentence is long and hard to parse and is the weakest part, but the information is decision-relevant rather than padding.

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, schema-rich (pattern present) but coverage-poor, output-schema-less tool, the description supplies the behavior an agent needs to warn users and predict side effects. The only real gap is the absence of any parameter/usage guidance.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required 'id' parameter is undocumented in the description. The description names the resource but says nothing about how to obtain or format the id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap even though the schema does carry a pattern constraint.

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 (Delete) and resource (a custom exercise), and immediately characterizes the scope of the deletion ('taken out of every routine, the favourites and the remembered weights'). An agent can distinguish this from delete_workout/delete_routine/delete_measurement without opening a schema.

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 explains the consequences of deleting but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., editing a custom exercise, or the write_custom_exercise sibling). There are no named alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit when/when-not guidance — usage is only inferable from the effects described.

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