Delete weigh-in

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds material consequences beyond that: deletion is permanent, nothing restores it, and day summaries and weight trends change. This is useful behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 core action and identifiers. Each sentence earns its place by adding usage guidance or consequence information, with 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining operational context: identifier source, correct usage, irreversibility, and downstream effects. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 sample_pk and day are already documented in the schema. The description repeats that sample_pk comes from list_weigh_ins and that the pair identifies the weigh-in, but adds no new format or constraint meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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: permanently delete one weigh-in. It also names the exact identifiers, sample_pk and day, and ties them to list_weigh_ins, so the agent can distinguish it from add_weigh_in, add_body_composition, and list_weigh_ins.

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 says when to use it: to remove a wrong or duplicate reading. It also gives the corrective workflow, directing the agent to delete and then use add_weigh_in or add_body_composition, which is a clear alternative path.

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