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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: completed and missed workouts are never touched, later program edits propagate only when Sync is enabled, no confirmation prompt is issued (safe because unassign_program reverses it), and a scoped Cotlet API key is required. These are exactly the mutation side-effects and auth needs an agent needs, and they are consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers side-effects, sync behavior, and auth in short sentences. The 'It does not ask for your OK' line is slightly chatty but earns its place by explaining the non-interactive contract.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side-effects, undo, propagation rules, and auth. It omits error/validation behavior and any return confirmation, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing given annotations cover the safety profile.

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 already documents all five parameters including defaults and the client_ids/group_names either-or. The description restates start_date and start_day behavior but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Put a program on the workout calendars of clients or client groups.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling unassign_program by naming it as the undo path, so an agent can tell the pair apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies ('Assigns from the start date on the program day you choose') and points at unassign_program as the reversal. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites beyond the API-key note.

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