undo_workout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that only the calendar entry is removed (workout stays in the library), that only app-uploaded entries are touched, that changed-hands entries are skipped and reported, that explicit athlete consent is required, and that card runs cannot invoke it.

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 with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct value (behavior, reversal semantics, safety scope, consent). It is slightly dense but nearly every clause 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 mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, reversal behavior, consent requirement, and edge-case handling (reported skips). Return values are handled by the output schema.

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% and the schema already describes proposal_id. The description adds nuance by noting the tool handles 'a whole applied week' as well as a single session, clarifying the scope of proposal_id beyond the schema's terse 'id of a proposal that was applied.'

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 and resource ('Take a session... back OFF the athlete's Garmin calendar') and explicitly frames itself as 'the counterpart of apply_workout.' An agent can immediately distinguish it from apply_workout and the read-only get_* siblings.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: 'when the athlete says the session should not be there after all, or after trying the write path out.' It also names the alternative (apply_workout) and the inverse relationship, leaving nothing to inference.

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