mfp_delete_fast

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint, and the description reinforces with 'Destructive and not recoverable', adding that deletion cannot be undone. It also discloses a platform constraint (no MFP read endpoint) and the return shape (deleted id and HTTP status), which goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the action and destructiveness appear first, followed by the critical id-origin constraint, then Args/Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 one-parameter destructive delete tool, this covers the essential operational context: irreversible effect, valid id provenance, inability to list existing fasts, and return value. With an output schema present, no further detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description compensates by saying the id identifies a fasting entry and must come from a prior mfp_log_fast call. However, response_format is only listed by name in Args with no added meaning, so the compensation is partial.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a fasting entry by id' — clear and distinct from siblings like mfp_delete_meal. It also names the exact target (fasting entry) and the key dimension (id), so an agent immediately knows what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on where the id must come from (prior mfp_log_fast or MFP app) and why listing is impossible, preventing a dead-end search. It does not name alternative tools for non-delete intents, but the prerequisite and limitation are clear enough for correct routing.

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