Unschedule a workout

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

Annotations already mark this as mutating and non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying that the workout itself is kept, which goes beyond the generic annotations and prevents the misconception that unscheduling deletes the workout. No further behavioral disclosure (permissions, reversibility) is given, but for this simple operation the added context is sufficient.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence names the action and target, the second sentence preempts confusion with deletion. Every word earns its place, and the key nuance is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the key non-destructive nuance. It doesn't mention where scheduled_workout_id comes from (e.g., garmin_scheduled_workouts), but that can be inferred from sibling tools. The main gap is the missing parameter guidance, which is a completeness issue but does not undermine the overall clarity 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?

The input schema has one required parameter with zero description coverage, and the description provides no information about scheduled_workout_id. It does not clarify whether this is the ID of the schedule entry or the workout ID, leaving a critical ambiguity. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not mention the parameter at all.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('scheduled workout from the calendar') and explicitly adds that the workout itself is kept, which distinguishes it from the sibling garmin_delete_workout. An agent can immediately tell this removes a calendar entry without deleting the underlying 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (removing a schedule while preserving the workout) and implicitly differentiates it from deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the exclusion to inference rather than direct guidance.

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