delete_workout_template

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that the deletion applies to saved workout templates from the Coros library, providing the target scope. However, the destructive nature is already disclosed via destructiveHint=true, and the description does not elaborate on consequences like irreversibility or impact on dependent schedules. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the action and object. Every word earns its place.

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 deletion tool with one parameter, destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the resource type and location, though it doesn't explicitly state how to obtain the ID (left to the parameter description). Overall, it's complete given the simplicity.

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 provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter (workout_id) with guidance to obtain it from list_workout_templates. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema carries the full load, meeting the baseline of 3.

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'), the target ('saved workout TEMPLATE'), and the scope ('from the Coros library'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_workout_template or list_workout_templates. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 implicitly conveys usage for removing a saved workout template, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The schema parameter description references list_workout_templates, which provides indirect guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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