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

Annotations already communicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the destructive scope (removes the calendar entry entirely) and by explicitly stating the underlying workout is preserved. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences deliver the core behavior first and the non-destructive nuance second. Every word earns its place, 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 single-parameter destructive operation with an output schema and full annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is affected and what is not, the parameter origin is documented in the schema, and return values are covered by the output schema.

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 100%, and the sole parameter already includes a helpful source hint ('From list_scheduled_workouts.'). The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 ('Remove'), the resource ('scheduled-workout entry'), and the scope ('from the calendar entirely'). The second sentence clarifies it does not delete the underlying workout, distinguishing it from workout deletion tools. This is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 clearly implies this is for fully removing a scheduled entry rather than deleting the workout itself-driving behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as remove-scheduled-workout-occurrence-tool or update-scheduled-workout-tool. The intended use is inferable, but explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is absent.

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