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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond annotations: only upcoming planned workouts are affected, and done/skipped entries are unreachable. It does not say what happens to the schedule slot beyond removal, but the added constraint is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scoping restriction following. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. The description covers purpose and scope limitations well; the only minor gap is not mentioning which sibling handles modifying a plan instead of deleting it.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents workout_id and warns against inventing values. The description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (cancels/removes) plus the resource (a planned, not yet done workout) and the effect (takes it off the schedule). The scope qualifier 'not yet done' clearly separates it from update_planned_workout, list_planned_workouts, and done-workout tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: workouts already marked done or skipped cannot be removed via this tool. It does not name the alternative tool (e.g. update_planned_workout) for modifying an existing plan, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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