delete_measurement

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the deletion is recorded by openGym and propagated so every updated device drops the entry, and the entry can resurface only from a device on openGym 1.3.9 with unsynced changes or from a device that edits it post-deletion. This resurrection/sync-propagation detail is well beyond what annotations convey.

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 the purpose in a short first sentence, then spends the remainder on propagation semantics. The second sentence is dense and clause-heavy but each detail carries real information about reversibility, 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description supplies what an agent otherwise can't know: that the deletion is synced/propagated and can reappear under specific conditions. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether any undo exists, but is otherwise complete for a one-parameter destructive tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already defines 'date' as YYYY-MM-DD on the profile's local calendar day. The description adds no additional date semantics, 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?

States a specific verb (delete) and an unambiguous resource (the body measurements of a day), with date scope included. An agent can distinguish this from delete_bodyweight ('body measurements' vs. bodyweight) and delete_workout without opening the 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?

Gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternate-tool guidance. It implies the operation is destructive and cascades to synced devices, but never says what the caller should do instead (e.g., only delete a day's entry vs. editing it) or what preconditions must hold.

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