schedule_week

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains idempotency, duplicate-skipping, and that the POST is skipped to avoid duplicate calendar entries. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the key side-effect behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well organized: a one-line purpose, a short idempotency note, and a minimal Args section. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the argument contract and the critical idempotency behavior well. It does not discuss when to choose this over sibling scheduling tools or how errors are reported, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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?

The input schema is essentially opaque (array of objects with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage), so the description compensates by defining week as a list of dicts with date (YYYY-MM-DD) and workout_id (int). This is enough to construct a valid call, though it does not state whether both keys are required or how invalid IDs are handled.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Schedule a list of workouts for the week in a single call.' It makes the batch/weekly scope clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling tools schedule_workout or schedule_workouts, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use schedule_week versus the similar sibling tools like schedule_workout or schedule_workouts. The only usage-adjacent information is the idempotency note, which describes behavior rather than selection criteria.

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