unschedule_todo

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that it only removes work slots, not the todo itself, and explains the effect of different scopes (all vs future). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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, no waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Remove ToDo work slots.') and then succinctly covers all three parameter patterns. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with a simple purpose and rich schema (100% coverage, enums, output schema exists), the description adequately explains the three modes of operation. It doesn't need to elaborate on return values or side effects beyond what is already clear.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the functional role of each parameter (workSlotId for one slot, locator with scope for all/future) and the optional from for future. This helps an agent choose the right combination.

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 ToDo work slots.' It distinguishes between removing a single slot via workSlotId and all/future slots via locator. This differentiates it from siblings like delete_todo (removes entire todo) and schedule_todo (adds slots).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use each parameter combination: 'Pass either workSlotId to remove one slot, locator with scope=all, or locator with scope=future and optional from.' It provides clear context for each case, though it could explicitly say when not to use the tool (e.g., vs delete_todo).

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