garmin_unschedule_workout

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a valuable behavioral note that the workout itself is kept, which aligns with destructiveHint=false and clarifies a key side effect. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the calendar entry beyond removal. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence. It front-loads the action and follows with the key clarification. No redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having an output schema and low complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required parameter, any prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the scheduled_workout_id from garmin_scheduled_workouts), or when to use this tool. For a modification tool, an agent would need more context to invoke it correctly.

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% for the sole parameter, scheduled_workout_id. The description does not explain what this ID represents, how to obtain it, or its format. The parameter is only defined by its name and type in the schema, and the description fails to compensate. This is a critical gap for invocation.

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 action (remove a scheduled workout) and explicitly distinguishes from deleting the workout itself by noting 'The workout itself is kept.' This separates it from sibling tools like garmin_delete_workout. It is a specific verb+resource with a key differentiating detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage via the phrase 'remove a scheduled workout' but does not name sibling tools or state conditions (e.g., use when you want to free the calendar but keep the workout definition). No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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