schedule_workout

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that scheduling triggers watch sync. It omits whether re-scheduling overwrites, whether duplicates are allowed, and any auth/connection requirement.

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 front-loaded paragraphs plus an Args block; the watch-sync rationale lands before the parameter detail. No filler sentences, and the format examples are placed exactly where an agent would look.

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?

With two required params, an output schema that covers return values, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior on repeated scheduling and whether the workout must already exist on the account.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does: it explains workout_id's provenance and constrains date to four concrete formats (YYYY-MM-DD, 'today', 'tomorrow', '+3'). This is information an agent could not infer from the bare string/integer 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?

Specific verb ('Put/schedule') plus specific resource ('existing workout on a date in the Garmin calendar'), and 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_workout while the sibling unschedule_workout covers the inverse. An agent can route between create_workout, schedule_workout, and unschedule_workout from the text alone.

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 the key usage fact that scheduling is what makes a workout sync to the watch, which explains why you'd call this rather than stopping at create_workout. It also names the two sources of workout_id (create_workout, list_workouts). It does not state what happens if a workout is already scheduled on that date, nor any prerequisites.

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