tp_unpair_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does disclose an important trait: 'No data is lost' and it creates two separate workouts. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or failure behavior, but it provides a reasonable safety signal for a mutation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Unpair a workout'), and every clause adds relevant information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with two well-described params and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. It could be more complete by stating the prerequisite that the workout must already be paired, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for both parameters (athlete and workout_id) at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the context that the workout must be 'the paired workout,' which is helpful but not a substantive expansion of parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unpair') and resource ('workout'), then clarifies the exact effect: detaching the completed workout file from the planned workout to create two separate workouts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_pair_workout and other workout mutation tools.

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 this tool is used to reverse a pairing, and the existence of tp_pair_workout as a sibling gives context. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., the workout must be paired), or when not to use it.

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