delete_fast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool deletes a fast entry, without disclosing whether the action is reversible, requires permissions, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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: two sentences plus an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and prerequisite. It doesn't describe return values, but that may be covered by the output schema. Overall, it's adequate for the complexity level.

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 description explains the fast_id parameter as 'The fast ID to delete,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema's title and type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.

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 explicitly states it deletes a fast entry from Cronometer, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_active_fast by implying it's for historical entries, and provides a prerequisite step.

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 instructs to use get_fasting_history first to find the fast_id, which is a clear usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the prerequisite is well stated.

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