clear_scheduled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares the operation destructive, describes the dry-run default and commit step, and limits deletion to workouts published by this server. It also explicitly excludes workouts made in HoodaRun's own builder.

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 front-loaded with the action, then immediately flags destructiveness, dry-run behavior, and scope. Every sentence adds operational value with no wasted text.

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 destructive bulk-clear tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description covers the critical safety and scope details. It is nearly complete, missing only lower-level details such as date format expectations and what a dry run returns.

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. It clarifies that start_date and end_date form an inclusive interval and fully explains dry_run's default and commit behavior, though it does not specify date string format or timezone handling.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: remove every feed workout within an inclusive date range. It also scopes the operation to workouts this server published, which helps distinguish it from single-item or unrelated scheduled-workout operations.

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 explains the safe usage pattern: defaults to dry_run=True and must be called again with dry_run=False to commit. It does not explicitly compare itself with siblings like unschedule_workout, but the range-based bulk-clear context is clear.

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