delete_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the irreversible/destructive nature and the preference for `code` over numeric id, but says nothing about required permissions, whether scheduled instances are also removed, or whether any confirmation step exists.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded: the action first, then the irreversibility and usage guardrail. No filler or restated metadata.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted, in what formats, and that it cannot be undone. Side effects on scheduled sessions remain unstated, but nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 0% for the single required `template_id`, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the argument is a `code` string (preferred) or a numeric id, which maps directly onto the schema's anyOf string/integer and adds a preference ordering the schema lacks.

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 a custom template') plus the two accepted identifier forms, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_workout, update_workout, and unschedule_workout. Minor friction: the description says 'template' while the tool name and parameter say 'workout', leaving a slight ambiguity about the target object.

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?

Includes the guardrail 'only when the user asked for it', which is real when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative (e.g. unschedule_workout if the user wants to remove a scheduled session without deleting the template). Usage context is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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