remove_plan_exercise

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses that historical workouts retain the exercise ('Past workouts with it stay in the history') and that the write is gated behind a preview/apply confirmation gate, which tempers the destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false flags. It does not describe what the preview contains or what happens on a failed match of day/exercise.

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?

Front-loaded statement of the operation, then a concrete example, then the critical preview/apply caveat. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 4-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: the persistence guarantee, the preview-then-apply workflow, and a worked example. The only residual gap is the ambiguous `plan` default, which is minor.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. The example clarifies the meaning and format of day and exercise, and the apply gate is explained. But the `plan` parameter, with an empty-string default that presumably means 'the active plan', is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Take one exercise off a day of the training plan.' An agent can distinguish this from add_plan_exercise and swap_plan_exercise by the verb alone, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Clearly spells out the two-step usage pattern: it returns a preview, and nothing is persisted unless apply=true, and only after user approval. Missing an explicit statement about when to prefer this over swap_plan_exercise (remove+add in one step) for exercises that need replacing.

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