unschedule_workout

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the critical behavior: only the scheduled entry is removed, while the workout itself is kept and can be scheduled again. It also discloses what happens when multiple workouts sit on a date, listing them rather than guessing. This does not contradict destructiveHint=true because removing a schedule entry is still a destructive update, even if reversible.

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 key reversible distinction and then uses a clear Args section. Every sentence adds useful behavioral or parameter context without repetition.

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-optional-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main semantic ambiguities and alternatives, but omits default/no-argument behavior.

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. It does well by documenting accepted date formats, listing behaviors, schedule_id provenance, and precedence. It does not explain what happens when neither optional parameter is supplied, leaving a small but real 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 explicitly distinguishes this from delete_workout and implicitly from schedule_workout, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It clearly says when to use this tool: to clear a session the watch should no longer show. It also names the alternative delete_workout for outright deletion and explains schedule_id precedence over date.

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