remove_scheduled_workout

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

The description only restates the basic action without adding behavioral context. Although the annotations already indicate destructiveHint and openWorldHint, the description does not disclose additional details such as permanence, side effects, or whether the removal is reversible. It adds no value beyond the structured data.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and object. It is exceptionally concise and structured, with 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 simplicity of the operation, the detailed input schema, and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally include side-effect notes, but the core context is adequately conveyed for a destructive removal operation.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (plan_id, id_in_plan, plan_program_id), covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (scheduled workout), and the context (Coros training calendar), distinguishing it from siblings like update_scheduled_workout and schedule_workout. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the usage: remove a scheduled workout. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_scheduled_workout or add_planned_workout, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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