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's 'never sends DELETE' and 'short-lived reference is not confirmation' statements are consistent and add real context. It goes further with the preview contents (exact content, incomplete coverage, possible irreversible loss, no backup or undo, unknown RM-history effects) and eligibility rules, which is strong disclosure for a preview tool.

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-loads the core purpose and the non-destructive guarantee, then layers preconditions and caveats. It is fairly dense but every sentence carries distinct information; only the rapid-fire caveat list could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still covers preconditions, eligibility, safety caveats and the non-confirmation semantics. For a preview tool feeding an execute sibling, nothing essential 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: it explains date as gym-local, tells where to obtain sourceActivityId (get_personal_activity), and states the ID must occur in the authenticated account calendar and verify owner/gym/date. gymId is only implied via 'selected gym', leaving a small gap.

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 for deleting one exact own activity entry') and clearly distinguishes itself from execute_activity_deletion by emphasizing that it never sends DELETE. An agent can identify the tool's role 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?

Explicitly says when to use it (before deletion, for an exact own entry) and prescribes the prerequisites: a gym-local date and a sourceActivityId obtained from get_personal_activity. It also rules out misuse by stating the reference is not confirmation and no DELETE is sent, implicitly routing confirmation to the execute sibling.

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