schedule_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does convey the essential effects: it schedules an existing workout and makes it sync to the watch, and it documents accepted date forms. However, it does not say whether scheduling overwrites an existing scheduled workout, whether it is idempotent, or whether any sync/connection requirement applies immediately.

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?

The description is two short purpose sentences followed by a minimal Args block; every sentence adds information. The key behavioral point is front-loaded and the parameter documentation is compact.

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 simple two-required-parameter tool with an output schema, nothing needed to invoke it is missing: both parameters are fully described and the workflow is stated. It falls just short of complete only because the duplicate-scheduling behavior is unspecified.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: workout_id is traced to create_workout/list_workouts, and date is documented with concrete examples including YYYY-MM-DD, 'today', 'tomorrow', and '+3' offsets. This is far more useful than the bare schema properties.

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 first sentence names the exact action and object: putting an existing workout on a date in the Garmin calendar. This clearly separates it from list_workouts/create_workout and from the read-only Garmin data getters, and 'Scheduling is what makes a workout sync to the watch' reinforces why the operation exists.

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?

The Args section explicitly tells the agent to source workout_id from create_workout or list_workouts, establishing the intended workflow. It does not say 'use this instead of X' or give an explicit when-not condition, but no sibling performs scheduling, so the guidance is adequate.

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