garmin_workout_unschedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the destruction is limited to the calendar entry and the workout object survives in the library, which materially changes how an agent should weigh confirmation. It omits idempotency/error behavior if the schedule_id is not currently scheduled.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope of impact front-loaded right after the action. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

A single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. What remains is minor: it does not mention preconditions (the workout must currently be scheduled) or whether the operation is reversible.

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% and the single parameter already carries strong guidance ('From garmin_upcoming_workouts. Not workout_id.'). The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas applies.

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 workout from the calendar') and immediately scopes the effect ('The workout stays in the user's library'), which implicitly separates it from garmin_workout_delete. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 retention note implies when this tool is appropriate (calendar removal without permanent loss), but there is no explicit redirect such as 'to remove permanently from the library, use garmin_workout_delete'. An agent must infer the alternative from the sibling list rather than the description.

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