unschedule_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if nothing is scheduled on that date, whether prior data is lost, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the format hint appended; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the mutation it performs, but as structure it is efficient.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently — notably the meaning of 'code' and the effect on any existing schedule entry.

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 compensate for both parameters. It does clarify the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which adds real value, but 'code' is never explained at all, leaving half the required inputs opaque.

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 verb phrase 'take a scheduled template off a day' identifies the resource (a scheduled workout template) and the action (removal from a calendar day), which is enough to separate it from schedule_workout. However, the informal wording and the unexplained relationship between 'template' and the 'code' parameter make the exact object being modified less clear than a named entity would.

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?

There is no guidance on when to unschedule versus deleting a workout (delete_workout) or editing it (update_workout), and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing scheduled entry. The inverse sibling schedule_workout is never referenced, so the agent must infer the pairing.

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