remove_exercise

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by giving a concrete example (duplicate tracker sync) and by noting that the date parameter defaults to today. It does not further detail irreversibility, but the annotations cover the core safety signal.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded. It states the action first, then gives selection guidance, then documents parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler 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 destructive delete tool with only two parameters and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use it, how it differs from edit_exercise, parameter semantics, and date defaulting behavior. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the output schema covers return values.

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 carries the full burden for parameters. It provides meaningful semantics for both: exercise_ids as a list of IDs from get_food_log, and date with format YYYY-MM-DD plus a default of today. The reference to get_food_log is slightly confusing since the tool is about exercise, but the parameters are still clearly explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete logged exercise entries.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from edit_exercise, which is for entries whose duration or burn is merely wrong. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiated from its closest sibling.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for an entry that should not be there at all, such as a duplicate from a tracker sync. It also names the alternative, edit_exercise, and explains when that tool is the better choice. This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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