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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses that the athlete is notified of the message and that a sent comment cannot be taken back from this tool. That is exactly the irreversible side-effect context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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-loaded with the coach-only scope and the core action, then a per-parameter block. No sentence is redundant; the caution about approval and irreversibility is placed where it matters.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema and full annotations, nothing essential is missing: permissions, id provenance, comment restrictions, notification, and irreversibility are all covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: `id` is defined as a trn_… workout or cmp_… race handle from get_calendar(mode='real'), and `comment` is defined as a message the athlete is notified of, valid on workouts only. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare 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 a specific verb and resource: marking a managed athlete's completed workout or race as viewed, and optionally posting a comment. It also names the sibling tool that produces the required id (get_calendar) and scopes the tool to coaches, so an agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings immediately.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: coach-only, id must come from get_calendar(mode='real'), comments are valid on workouts only, and the coach's go-ahead must be obtained before posting. These are concrete when/when-not rules rather than implied usage.

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