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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that this is a manual completion path rather than something derived from a recording, but it does not disclose status changes, idempotency, or undo behavior.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, has one required parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description covers the main call scenario. It is missing only a small note on effects or preconditions, such as whether the workout must exist or be scheduled.

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% and the description provides no parameter-specific explanation; workout_id is only inferable from the tool name, field title, and uuid format. The single-parameter design mitigates the harm, but the description itself adds no semantic value for this dimension.

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 clear action ('Mark ... as done') and a specific resource ('a workout') plus a scope condition ('when the user did it without a recording'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_workout and move_workout.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use when a user completed a workout but no recording exists. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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