execute_activity_deletion

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: rechecks of account/gym/membership/date/ownership/content, exactly one DELETE to a fixed verified endpoint, post-delete calendar read, and the warning that a reference or boolean alone is not proof of consent. It also flags that an absent row does not prove permanent deletion or RM-history effects.

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?

Dense but every clause earns its place, with the core confirmation requirement front-loaded before the recheck/retry caveats. Slightly long for a single tool, but not padded.

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 write with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers prerequisites, consent, verification scope, single-attempt semantics, and read-back. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 carry parameter meaning. It explains actionReference must come fresh from prepare_activity_deletion and that confirmed: true accompanies the call, but it never defines sourceActivityId's role in matching the previewed entry, nor gymId, which the schema presents only as an opaque pattern. Partial compensation.

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) plus the exact resource/scope ('one exact own activity entry') and names the required precursor tool prepare_activity_deletion, cleanly separating it from the prepare_* siblings. An agent can identify the operation 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, mandates showing the full preview and obtaining separate human confirmation of the exact entry before calling with confirmed: true, and states the retry prohibition ('an uncertain attempt must never be retried automatically'). It effectively defines when and when-not to call.

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