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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds useful behavioral boundaries: it creates only new workouts and cannot edit/delete existing ones, and it applies the user's default set/rep scheme. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key feature support and side-effect boundary. No filler or duplication of schema fields.

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 create tool with rich schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, this description covers the essential non-schema facts: it creates a new structured workout, uses default set/rep scheme, and is non-destructive to existing workouts. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema carries most parameter detail; the description adds the 'default set/rep scheme' context and highlights chained_to_next/set_types usage. It doesn't document category/description, but those are already fully described in the schema.

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?

States an unambiguous create operation on a structured workout, with source (list of exercises) and behavior (default set/rep scheme). The phrase 'brand-new' and the explicit 'cannot edit or delete any existing workout' scope it away from update/delete tools, though it doesn't name a sibling like create-scheduled-workout-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?

Provides a clear exclusion ('cannot edit or delete any existing workout') that tells an agent not to use this for modifying existing workouts. It never names an alternative (e.g., create-scheduled-workout-tool for scheduled workouts or duplicate-workout-tool for copying), leaving when-to-use vs siblings to inference.

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