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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: the blast radius (calendar entry only, template preserved) and that the effect is irreversible, plus a required user-confirmation step. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 core constraint is front-loaded and easy to scan, but the content is stated twice: 'the workout stays in the library' is restated as 'without deleting the workout template', and 'irreversible' is immediately echoed by 'IRREVERSIBLE:'. Two of the four clauses are redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety profile: scope of deletion, persistence of the template, irreversibility, and the confirmation requirement. Only the practical detail of how to source scheduledWorkoutId is left entirely to the 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% for the single parameter (scheduledWorkoutId, described as 'Numeric id'), and the description adds nothing about id format, how to obtain it, or accepted integer/string forms. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Removes a workout from the calendar') and immediately scopes it against the obvious sibling by clarifying 'the workout stays in the library', which separates it from delete_workout. An agent can pick this tool over the delete variant without opening either schema.

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 an explicit precondition for invocation ('confirm with the user before calling') tied to irreversibility, and the library-persistence clause implicitly routes the agent to delete_workout when the template itself should go. It stops short of naming that alternative outright, so it's clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing statement.

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