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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses a key side effect: workouts already on Garmin are removed first and are NOT re-sent, instructing the agent to tell the user to ask the coach to push it again. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences carry the core action and the critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema and annotations already present, the description provides the essential extra context: the Garmin removal limitation and the required user-facing follow-up. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly and communicate the outcome.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description compensates for the least obvious parameter: 'omit am_pm to keep its current AM/PM slot.' workout_id and new_date are self-explanatory from their names and formats, so the description adds meaning where it matters most.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Move an uncompleted workout to another date') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_workout or mark_workout_completed. The qualifier 'uncompleted' adds precision that prevents misuse.

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 gives clear context for the tool: moving uncompleted workouts to another date, and it explicitly excludes completed workouts by saying 'uncompleted.' It does not name sibling alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous enough that an agent can decide when to call it.

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