garmin_delete_workout

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows deletion is irreversible. The description adds a valuable nuance: that recorded activities cannot be deleted, which prevents misuse. However, it does not disclose side effects such as what happens to scheduled instances of the workout or whether the deletion is permanent. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description adds moderate behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the action, then immediately clarifies the critical limitation. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 it's a simple destructive tool with one parameter, the description covers the core behavior and a key limitation. However, it omits any guidance on the parameter and does not mention how it interacts with scheduling (e.g., whether deleting a workout also cancels scheduled instances). The output schema exists to cover return values, but the combination of missing parameter semantics and no scheduling context leaves the definition incomplete for an agent that needs to act reliably.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter workout_id, and the description provides no explanation of what this ID refers to or how to obtain it. The agent is left to infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for a destructive operation. The description fails to compensate 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 clearly states 'Delete a saved workout' with a specific verb and resource, and adds a scope limiter ('Only affects plans — recorded activities cannot be deleted.'). It distinguishes from recorded activities but does not explicitly name a sibling tool like garmin_unschedule_workout. Therefore it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies the tool's purpose and clarifies its scope (plans only), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like garmin_unschedule_workout (which removes a scheduled workout but doesn't delete the saved plan). No contraindications or alternative routing are given, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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