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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is edited (timing/recurrence) and explicitly ruling out changes to the workout itself, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 carry the core purpose and a clear non-goal with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool, the description is minimal and relies heavily on the schema and annotations. It does not disclose potential side effects around recurrence updates or explain the meaning of several parameters. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description's 'timing/recurrence' grouping loosely maps to the date/time and repeat parameters, but it does not explain unannotated fields such as reminder_minutes, start_date, or end_date. Schema descriptions cover only about half the parameters, and the description does not fully compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 names a specific verb ('Edit'), a concrete resource ('existing scheduled-workout entry'), and a clear scope ('timing/recurrence'). It also distinguishes itself from other tools by stating it does not modify the workout itself, clarifying what the tool is and is not for.

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?

'Existing' signals the tool is for already-created scheduled workouts, and 'timing/recurrence' makes it clear which kinds of updates belong here. The non-goal sentence provides an explicit exclusion, though it does not name alternative sibling tools such as create, delete, or toggle.

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