delete_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an activity' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it fails to disclose critical traits: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions or authentication are required, if there are rate limits, what happens to associated data (e.g., comments, kudos), or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action ('Delete an activity'), and has no wasted sentences. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks necessary context: behavioral details like permanence or side effects, usage guidelines relative to siblings, and any output information. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall description fails to provide enough information for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Activity ID to delete'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 'Delete an activity' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (activity), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_activity' or 'get_activity' beyond the obvious verb difference, nor does it specify what type of activity (e.g., Strava activity) or scope is involved. This is vague but not tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an activity ID from 'get_activities'), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting comments), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_activity' for modifications. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit context.

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