unschedule_workout

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful beyond-annotation context by specifying that the template survives the removal. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible or how the confirm parameter influences behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action and immediately clarifies the most important distinction. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary qualification.

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 destructive action with a confirmation parameter, the description is minimal but directionally correct. It explains the core operation and distinguishes it from deletion, but it leaves gaps around the confirm parameter, preconditions, and irreversibility. The abundance of sibling tools like list_workouts and delete_workout would have benefited from more explicit placement, but the current text is adequate for a straightforward unscheduling action.

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 should carry the burden of explaining parameter semantics. It does not mention either scheduled_workout_id or confirm. While the ID name is self-explanatory, the confirm boolean's purpose and necessity are entirely unexplained, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 verb 'Remove' with a specific resource ('a scheduled workout from the calendar') and adds the crucial qualifier 'without deleting its template,' which distinguishes this tool from the sibling delete_workout. This is a specific and non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 phrase 'without deleting its template' provides clear contextual guidance: use this to remove a calendar entry while preserving the template. It implies the alternative of delete_workout for full deletion, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or state when not to use this tool in broader terms.

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