schedule_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write with external effects. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what scheduling does, whether it overwrites an existing scheduled workout for that date, or what permissions are required. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 single fragment is short but does not earn its place — it is an internal code reference rather than agent-facing information. Brevity without substance is under-specification, not conciseness.

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?

This is a state-mutating scheduling tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of scheduling-specific behavior (e.g., overwriting existing entries for a date, timezone handling, whether the workout must already exist). The description supplies none of the information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%: dateStr is documented as 'Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC)' and workoutId as 'Numeric id'. The description's only parameter-related content is an implementation note about formatDate, which adds no usable semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 description never states what the tool does. '`dateStr` routed through `formatDate`' is an implementation detail, not a purpose statement; an agent cannot tell from this that the tool schedules a workout, nor distinguish it from siblings like create_workout, unschedule_workout, or get_scheduled_workouts.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as unschedule_workout or create_workout. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name and sibling list.

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