Delete water entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the important behavioral requirement that the tool should only be used after explicit user intent, which is a safety guard. It also notes the entry is 'local', providing additional context. No contradictions 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, well-structured sentence of 13 words. It front-loads the action ('Delete') and precisely conveys the necessary information without any extraneous words. 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 destructive tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and a key precondition. Sibling tools like nourish_delete_intake and nourish_clear_hydration_day are not mentioned, but the tool's purpose is clear enough. A minor gap: it doesn't clarify that deletion is permanent or that it only affects a single entry.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% with descriptions for 'id' and 'explicit_user_intent'. The description reiterates 'by id' and 'after explicit user intent', adding little beyond what the schema already provides. The 'response_format' parameter is not mentioned. The description does add that the id refers to a 'hydration entry', which is slightly additional context.

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 resource 'single local hydration entry', the key identifier 'by id', and a precondition 'after explicit user intent'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nourish_delete_intake (which deletes food intake) and nourish_clear_hydration_day (which clears all water entries).

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 usage when the user wants to delete a single water entry, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. The precondition 'after explicit user intent' is mentioned, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over nourish_undo_last or nourish_clear_hydration_day.

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