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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses exactly what is removed (the calendar entry) and what remains (the workout library). It also explains the ambiguity behavior when multiple workouts exist on the same day. This is strong behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, edge case, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds useful information, and the Args section is compact and organized.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. For a two-parameter mutation tool, it covers the essential behavior, edge case, and parameter semantics needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the key semantics: date accepts YYYY-MM-DD, 'today', 'tomorrow', or offsets like '+3', and schedule_id targets one specific calendar entry with precedence over date. It does not clarify the meaning of the schema defaults (empty string and 0) or the accepted integer/string forms of schedule_id, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource: taking a workout off a day in the Garmin calendar. It also distinguishes the operation from deleting the workout entirely by explaining that the workout stays in the library and can be rescheduled. This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_workout.

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 gives clear usage context: remove a calendar entry via date, or target one entry with schedule_id, which takes precedence. It also explains the multi-workout edge case where entries are listed and nothing is removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as delete_workout for permanent deletion, but the context is otherwise clear.

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