Delete Exercise

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the fuzzy-match-by-name behavior, which is useful, but it omits critical traits for a destructive operation: irreversibility, permission requirements, and potential side effects on exercise history. The match ambiguity risk is also unaddressed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and matching logic without any wasted words. Every element 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core call mechanics. However, because there are no annotations, a destructive delete operation would benefit from explicit statements about irreversibility or data impact. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description's matching behavior aligns with the schema example but doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond what's already present.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deletes') with a clear resource ('exercise from the user's library') and adds distinct matching semantics ('fuzzy-matched by name, or exact by id'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_exercise and update_exercise.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: it's obvious you use this to delete an exercise, but the description doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided.

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