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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying that the schedule entry is preserved, which would otherwise be ambiguous given the destructive hint. It also explains the effect on future occurrences, giving agents a clear behavioral model beyond the bare annotation flags.

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 with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the key exclusion is stated immediately after. 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?

For a destructive-but-scoped operation, the description clearly explains what is skipped and what is not deleted. With a full input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential decision-making context. It does not discuss reversibility or effects on completed occurrences, but these are minor given the structured 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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds modest semantic nuance by paraphrasing the 'scope' behavior ('from that date forward'), but it does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Skip') and resource ('occurrence of a recurring scheduled workout'), and clarifies the two scope options. It explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion by noting it does not delete the schedule entry itself, which differentiates it from sibling delete-scheduled-workout-tool.

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 implies when to use it: to skip one or future occurrences of a recurring workout. It gives one important exclusion ('does not delete the schedule entry itself'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions like 'use delete-scheduled-workout-tool when you want to remove the entire schedule.'

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