preview_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that ('WITHOUT saving anything'). It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the mandatory human-in-the-loop step (show result, wait for confirmation) and the unit conventions for the input values. It does not describe error/validation behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, and the most important constraint (no saving) plus the mandatory ordering are front-loaded before the unit conventions.

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 deeply nested workout-spec input this covers the essential invocation workflow and units, but with no output schema the description only gestures at the return value ('show it in readable form') and never says whether validation errors are reported or what the preview output contains.

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 100% and the nested spec/step/target objects are richly annotated, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's unit note (decimal-minute paces, metres, seconds) largely restates what the schema's own field descriptions say, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 action (preview/show a workout in readable form) and a hard scope constraint (WITHOUT saving anything), which cleanly separates it from create_workout, named explicitly. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and does not do.

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 an unambiguous workflow: 'Always call this first, show the user the result, and wait for them to confirm before create_workout.' It names the alternative tool and the condition (user confirmation) that gates it, leaving nothing to inference.

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