delete_health_entry

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. The description only states the action ('delete') with no details on irreversibility, what happens to related data, or any side effects. This is a bare minimum disclosure for a mutating 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?

The description is a single short sentence with zero waste, which is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter. However, it errs on the side of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single-parameter input, the description should provide more context about the deletion behavior, irreversibility, or relationship to other health entry operations. The two-word description is inadequate for a delete operation.

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?

With 1 parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which puts this at the baseline of 3 for good schema coverage.

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 '健康エントリを削除' (delete health entry) states the verb (delete) and resource (health entry), making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling delete tools like delete_hobby, delete_career_entry, etc. beyond the resource name itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_health_entry, delete_custom_entry, or other delete tools. There is no context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing entry or undelete behavior.

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