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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing what is retained ('Completed and missed workouts stay'), what is removed (upcoming workouts), that no one is notified ('reaches no one'), that the action is reversible via re-assignment, that no confirmation prompt is issued, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). This all aligns with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each following sentence adds real information (retention, reversibility, notifications, auth). Slightly wordy and one run-on sentence ('It reaches no one and a new assign_program restores it, so it does not ask for your OK') but nothing is 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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the needed ground: effect on existing data, reversibility, notification behavior, confirmation behavior, and auth. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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% (client_id from list_clients, program_id from list_programs), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraint detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a program from a client's calendar.' It is immediately distinguishable from its sibling truecoach_assign_program, and the scope (a client's calendar, upcoming workouts only) is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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 clear operational context and points to the counterpart tool ('a new assign_program restores it'), which implicitly tells the agent this is the inverse of assigning. It does not state an explicit 'use this when / do not use this when' rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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