execute_activity_deletion

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real operational context: rechecks of owner, gym, date, content and hosted role permission before at most one DELETE, a post-delete read of the own calendar/detail, and the caveat that absence does not prove permanence. The no-auto-retry rule and confirmation gate are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs for an irreversible write.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its key inputs, and every sentence carries an operational rule or guardrail. It is dense and jargon-heavy ("RM effects") and could split the recheck chain into cleaner clauses, but there is 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, the definition covers the full lifecycle: precondition reference, pre-delete recheck, single execution, post-delete verification, and uncertainty handling. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, so nothing material 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for three of four: actionReference (must be a fresh prepare_activity_deletion reference), sourceActivityId (the target entry), and confirmed (set only after separate confirmation). gymId is only obliquely implied via "recheck ... gym", so one parameter remains under-explained.

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 ("Delete the exact own entry") plus the identifying inputs ("fresh prepare_activity_deletion reference and its sourceActivityId"). This clearly separates it from prepare_activity_deletion and the other prepare_/execute_ sibling pairs, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Explicitly requires a fresh prepare_activity_deletion reference, requires separate account-holder confirmation before calling with confirmed: true, and forbids automatic retry of an uncertain write. It also excludes a plausible-but-wrong trigger ("Booking and publication preference switches do not affect this action"), giving both when and when-not guidance.

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