prepare_exercise_result_deletion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Sends no write' rather than contradicting it. It also adds real behavioral context the annotations do not carry: the tool validates that the activity is on the account calendar for that date and gym and displays its exercises. It stops short of stating what happens when verification fails or how the preview is presented.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the verification behavior, then the confirmation workflow. The workflow sentence is agent-directed rather than a description of the tool, but it earns its place for a two-step destructive flow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still tells the agent what the preview contains (the activity's exercises). For a read-only two-parameter preview gating a deletion, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description still adds meaning: the date is gym-local, and the ID must be the account holder's own activity sourced from two named tools. That provenance guidance is genuinely beyond the schema text.

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 and resource — preview deleting one of the account holder's own activities (e.g. a saved PR) — keyed by gym-local date and activity ID. That phrasing separates it cleanly from execute_exercise_result_deletion and from the non-deletion siblings in the list.

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?

Explicitly names where the activityId comes from (get_personal_activity or execute_exercise_result) and names the follow-up tool, execute_exercise_result_deletion, which must only run after the preview is shown and explicit confirmation is obtained. The when-to-use and the handoff to the alternative are both spelled out.

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