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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive intent (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: it explicitly guarantees the source workout is not modified, and it discloses recurrence capability. This helps an agent predict side effects more precisely.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action and key non-modification caveat are front-loaded, and the recurrence scope is included naturally in parentheses.

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 7-parameter tool with a rich schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: scheduling onto the calendar, recurrence support, and non-modification of the source workout. Remaining details like repeat_days/end_date constraints are sufficiently covered by the schema.

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 high (86%), so the input schema already documents most parameters. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond aligning 'one-off or recurring' with repeat_type and the 'does not modify workout itself' clue for workout_id. No significant semantic gap to compensate for.

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 ('Schedule') and resource ('a workout onto the calendar'), and immediately clarifies the scope as one-off or recurring. The second sentence, 'Does not modify the workout itself,' distinguishes this tool from create-workout-tool and clarifies its scheduling role.

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 provides clear context for creating scheduled workouts and implies it is not for editing the underlying workout, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer update/delete/toggle-scheduled-workout tools. The usage guidance is reasonable but mostly implicit.

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