Delete a single scheduled workout from your COROS calendar. Use this after listing scheduled workouts to remove a specific occurrence by plan ID and occurrence ID.
Remove one workout occurrence from the COROS calendar. Use list_scheduled_workouts first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planId | Yes | ||
| idInPlan | Yes | ||
| planProgramId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description's 'Remove' wording aligns with that. The description adds only mild value beyond the annotations by specifying 'one workout occurrence' and the suggested prerequisite call. No contradiction exists, but there is little additional behavioral context such as irreversibility or effect on the overall plan.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with an actionable prerequisite, so every word 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 simple destructive operation on one calendar occurrence, the description states the purpose and a critical prerequisite. However, because the parameters are completely undocumented and the agent is not told which fields from list_scheduled_workouts map to planId and idInPlan, the description is only minimally adequate rather than fully complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It does not explain planId, idInPlan, or planProgramId at all. The vague instruction to call list_scheduled_workouts first is not enough for an agent to know how to populate the parameters correctly.
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 explicit phrase 'Remove one workout occurrence' defines exactly what the tool does, and 'Use list_scheduled_workouts first' sets a clear invocation workflow, even though it does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.
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?
It clearly says when to use the tool: to remove a single scheduled occurrence. The instruction 'Use list_scheduled_workouts first' provides a concrete prerequisite and indirectly tells the agent where to obtain the needed identifiers. It does not, however, name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a fully explicit routing guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.