delete_workout

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

Adds genuinely new behavior beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: it verifies the deletion afterward ("check it's gone") and warns that workouts synced from TrainingPeaks/Intervals.icu may reappear on the source app's next sync — a non-obvious side effect critical for an agent deciding whether to delete. It also discloses the return payload (deleted Workout's id and name), filling the gap left by the absent output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and guardrail, followed by the sync warning and return value. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given no output schema and a single fully-documented parameter, the description covers what is needed: scope, guardrail, side-effect warning, verification behavior, and return values. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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 coverage is 100% and the workout_id parameter already documents its format and provenance ("as returned by list_workouts"). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that, which is appropriate given the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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 ... Workouts from their Rouvy library") and scopes it to the rider's own library, clearly distinguishing it from sibling read/list/create/update workout tools. 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?

"Only when they ask" gives an explicit guardrail for this destructive operation, which is exactly the context an agent needs for a delete. It does not explicitly name the alternative flow (e.g., use list_workouts to find the id, get_workout to confirm) — though the schema description points to list_workouts for the id — so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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