measurements_delete_bmi

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

The key behavioral trait disclosed is that the deletion is permanent, which is important for a destructive operation. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, or behavior for non-existent IDs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the critical caveat about permanence. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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?

While the tool is simple (single parameter, no nested objects), and an output schema exists to document return values, the description lacks cues about error handling, prerequisites, or any broader context. For a deletive action, one might expect guidance on irreversible impact or confirmation steps, but the permanence note partially covers that. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 bmi_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with a clear description. The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, this baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('a BMI record'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming the resource type. However, it does not provide any additional context that differentiates it from other delete operations on related resources beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or context for deletion. The description simply states what it does without any clues about appropriate usage scenarios, such as requiring explicit user confirmation or when it should be avoided.

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