delete_activity

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

Annotations already set idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds value by saying 'permanently remove' (indicating the deletion is irreversible, beyond the bare destructiveHint) and specifying the target as calendar files. It does not contradict annotations, and with the annotation coverage, the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. Missing details like auth requirements are not needed given the simplicity and annotation hints.

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 two sentences plus an args listing. It is front-loaded with the primary action, immediately justifies the use case, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety traits. The description fully explains what the tool does and when to use it, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter activity_id, with its own description 'Unique activity ID to delete.' The Args section repeats this exactly, adding no new meaning. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description does not compensate with additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states 'Delete an activity by ID from Intervals.icu calendar' with a specific verb, resource, and identifier. It also distinguishes itself from sibling delete_event by specifying 'activity' and gives a concrete use case for removing duplicate or invalid uploaded activity files.

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 phrase 'Use to permanently remove duplicate or invalid uploaded activity files' provides explicit context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tool names (delete_event, update_activity) make differentiation apparent.

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