delete_blood_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive nature plus the version-matching behavior (the version must correspond to the reading being removed, an optimistic-concurrency constraint not visible in the schema). It stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or failure modes on a version mismatch.

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 core instruction is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is tight and useful. The parenthetical rationale about the server needing a delete path (§D9k) is meta-commentary that adds little for an agent choosing a tool, slightly diluting the otherwise efficient text.

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?

Two required parameters are both documented with formats and provenance, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the workflow dependency on set_blood_pressure is spelled out. Nothing needed to invoke this 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'date' is specified as YYYY-MM-DD and 'version' is defined as the value returned by set_blood_pressure or get_blood_pressure, which is essential given the schema's loose integer-or-string anyOf.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a single blood pressure measurement'), and explicitly scopes to one reading rather than a bulk operation. It also names the sibling that produces the required identifiers (set_blood_pressure), making it distinguishable from get_blood_pressure and set_blood_pressure without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: call after set_blood_pressure and pass back the date and version it returned. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. what happens if the version is stale or whether deletion is permanent), but the 'when' is unambiguous for the primary path.

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