delete_workout

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description goes well beyond that. It discloses the working-weight fallback, deferred media deletion after a grace period, cross-device deletion propagation, and the two narrow conditions under which the entry can reappear (a device on openGym 1.3.9 with unsynced changes, or an edit made after deletion before syncing).

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 action and target are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by dense consequence information where each sentence adds behavior. The final resurrection sentence is long and comma-heavy, but it is not 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers identity of the target, downstream effects on remembered weights, media lifecycle, and sync/resurrection semantics. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 100% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the id and its pattern. The description restates and slightly clarifies the legacy format, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema does not already carry; 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 and resource ("Delete a logged workout") and immediately qualifies it with how to identify the target, including the legacy "YYYY-MM-DD|<start>" form. This clearly separates it from read_workouts (source of the id) and from delete_all_sessions (bulk removal).

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 tells the agent where the required id comes from ("the id read_workouts shows") and how to handle pre-id workouts, which is real usage context. It stops short of explicit exclusions or alternatives, e.g. it never says when to prefer write_update_workout or delete_all_sessions instead.

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