delete_routine

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is low, yet the description adds substantial context: logged workouts retain history, the routine remains in rotation/round as skipped, deleting the last routine leaves a round unusable, and deletion syncs to all devices with a documented resurrection edge case. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

The core consequence is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the prose is dense and run-on, and the final openGym 1.3.9 / unsynced-changes edge case is highly niche detail for a calling agent. Some sentences earn their place; others over-specify.

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 no output schema and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it documents destruction scope, persistence of history, and cross-device sync effects. It stops short of auth/permission or failure-mode details, but is otherwise complete for a delete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description never mentions the identifier at all — no format, source, or example. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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+resource ('Delete a routine') and immediately clarifies scope: it is also removed from every weekday and date it was planned on. An agent can distinguish it from sibling deletes (delete_workout, delete_custom_exercise) and from write_routine 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 what deletion does but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (write_routine, write_copy_routine) or what prerequisites exist. There is no when/when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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