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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it explains the external side effect on the user's Garmin calendar, that the template is not modified, that past occurrences are retained, and that a same-named workout may persist with the reason surfaced in still_scheduled_by.

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 removal scope and its main failure mode are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every following sentence (Garmin side effect, still_scheduled_by, template preservation, arg constraints) carries distinct information with no filler.

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, idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers side effects, refusal conditions, retention behavior, and return-field semantics, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters; the description still adds the 'today or later' validation constraint on date and clarifies name matching is case-insensitive, which the schema does not state. Only mildly exceeds the baseline 3.

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+resource (remove a scheduled workout occurrence from one calendar date) plus the scope boundary that separates it from delete_workout: the template itself is untouched. An agent can distinguish it from schedule_workout/delete_workout purely from the text.

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?

Explicit when-it-works/when-it-fails: only single-date scheduled occurrences can be removed, weekly-routine or program occurrences are refused and must be changed in the app, and the workout_folder_name parameter exists specifically to disambiguate duplicates. Past dates are excluded as training record.

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