prepare_activity_deletion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: no backup or undo, possible irreversible loss, unknown RM-history effects, and a current hosted role permission requirement. That is exactly the kind of consequence-level context an agent needs before surfacing a deletion preview.

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 front-loaded: the read-only-preview framing and ownership scoping come first, then consequences, then the confirmation protocol. Most sentences earn their place, though the trailing 'Booking and publication preference switches do not affect this action' and the out-of-schema 'confirmed: true' reference add noise for a preview-only tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers permission requirements, irreversibility, and the required confirmation handoff. The remaining gap is the optional-parameter behavior (what a date-only call covers) and the ambiguous 'confirmed: true' mention, which belongs to the execution step, not this one.

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 does so only partially, tying 'owner, gym, date' to the inputs and clarifying that 'arbitrary IDs do not select another account' (a real scoping constraint on sourceActivityId). It never explains what omitting the optional gymId or sourceActivityId means, and the 'confirmed: true' flag it references does not exist in this schema (additionalProperties: false), which muddies the parameter picture.

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 ('Prepare a read-only preview of one exact own calendar entry') and scopes it to the caller's own entry, which cleanly separates it from execute_activity_deletion and from prepare_activity_publication. An agent can identify the tool's job 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 frames the tool as a preparation step that 'never sends DELETE' and requires 'separate account-holder confirmation before execution with confirmed: true', and rules out booking/publication preference switches as irrelevant. It stops short of naming the sibling execute_activity_deletion as the follow-up call, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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