delete_workout

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of deletion aligns with that. The description adds value by clarifying what is NOT deleted (scheduled calendar entries), which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction; this is adequate given the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clarifying note about what it does not do. Both sentences earn their place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the destructive nature, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks important details such as whether authentication is required (though there are auth tools in siblings) or what happens if deletion fails, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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. It does not explicitly explain the workoutId parameter, but the parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description's context about deleting a workout implies that workoutId refers to the workout to delete. This is marginal value over the schema, but not substantial.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (delete) and the resource (saved workout from COROS Training Hub library), distinguishing it from related tools like remove_scheduled_workout. It is explicit about what is deleted, which is sufficient for purpose clarity.

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?

The description provides context by clarifying that it does not remove scheduled calendar entries, which implicitly guides when to use this tool versus remove_scheduled_workout or similar tools. It is clear about its scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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