move_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the important non-obvious trait: the operation is really copy-then-delete, so the session is destroyed and recreated with new ids. It omits what the response returns (presumably the new id) and any permission/auth requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the eligibility rule, followed by the mechanism that justifies the rule. No waste.

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?

The key behavioral risk (identity change, destructive copy/delete) is covered, but for a mutation with no annotations, no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the return value and the `team_id` parameter unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains `to_date` and implies `program_workout_id` is the session being moved, but `team_id` is never mentioned and no formats are given for the date.

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+resource ('Reschedule a personal session') and scopes it to sessions with no logged results, which separates it from update_session/delete_session. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 a clear eligibility precondition ('has no logged results yet'), which tells the agent when this tool applies and implicitly when it does not. It stops short of pointing at the alternative (update_session) for sessions that already have results.

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