fitbit_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint/readOnly=false, but the description adds real behavioral context on top: it refuses uncertain records, verifies deletion afterward, and warns that the macro-correction path is not atomic. Those guardrails and the non-atomicity caveat are exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot derive from the annotation block.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope restriction and confirmation requirement before the less-common macro workflow. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 destructive, non-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: safety guardrail, verification behavior, and the non-atomic workflow caveat. The residual gap is that parameter contracts for operationId/confirm are left to the schema, which itself carries no descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. 'After explicit user intent' implicitly maps to the confirm const-true flag, and 'created by this operation' hints that operationId must reference the originating operation, but neither parameter's format or exact contract is explained.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) plus a tightly scoped resource ('only the known Google records created by this operation'), which distinguishes it from siblings like fitbit_cancel_draft or fitbit_commit. It never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferred from scope rather than explicit routing.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('after explicit user intent') and a concrete workflow for the manual-food macro case (remove old records, then review and save a new preview). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead in other situations, so no true when-not guidance.

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