delete_workout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the non-reversible nature ('permanently') and the requirement for 'explicit confirmation', which clarifies that the confirm parameter must be set. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss edge cases or side effects.

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 description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and outcome, making it easy to scan quickly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key action and the confirmation gate. Annotations provide safety hints. It does not elaborate on the return value, but that is handled by the output schema. The only gap is explicitly tying the 'confirmation' to the confirm parameter, but overall it is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but only mentions 'explicit confirmation' (likely the confirm boolean). It does not describe workout_id at all or the need for it. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('workout template'), and adds 'permanently' to clarify scope, distinguishing it from tools like unschedule_workout. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While 'permanently delete' implies it is for removing a template, it does not contrast with siblings like unschedule_workout or mention prerequisites (e.g., confirmation flag must be true). The confirmation requirement is hinted but not explicitly framed as a usage condition.

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