unschedule_workout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that this is a WRITE operation, which is critical since the annotation readOnlyHint is absent. It also clarifies that the template is preserved, addressing potential side effects. This is more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 extremely concise, with two short paragraphs and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place: it states the action, clarifies the side-effect (keeps template), and explains the parameter. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema (which likely describes the result), the description is almost complete. It covers the key behavioral aspects (write operation, template preservation) and parameter sourcing. Minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens to the schedule_id if the workout is already unscheduled or if it's invalid, but this is not critical for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides crucial information about the parameter: 'schedule_id: id returned by schedule_workout'. This explains the parameter's origin and format, adding value beyond the schema. The guidance is clear and actionable, though it could mention what happens if the id is invalid.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Remove a scheduled workout from the calendar', distinguishing it from siblings like 'schedule_workout' and 'delete_workout' by specifying it only removes the calendar entry, not the workout itself.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does (removes calendar entry) and what it does not do (keeps the template). It implies usage when a scheduled workout needs to be unscheduled, and the note 'keeps the template' helps differentiate from deleting the workout. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_workout'.

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