schedule_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is idempotent (no-op on duplicate) and that it 'reports success'. It also implies the action modifies the calendar. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., invalid workout ID or date format issues) or side effects beyond scheduling, so some behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief explanatory line, a note about idempotency, and a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the straightforward nature of the tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, required parameters (with formats), and idempotency. The output schema exists, so return details are not required. No critical context (e.g., prerequisites beyond having a valid workout ID) is missing.

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 has no per-parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), but the tool description compensates with an explicit 'Args' section that explains 'workout_id: ID of the workout to schedule (get IDs from get_workouts)' and 'calendar_date: Date to schedule the workout in YYYY-MM-DD format'. This fully covers the meaning and format of both parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Schedule a workout to a specific calendar date' and explains that it 'adds an existing workout from your Garmin workout library to your Garmin Connect calendar on the specified date.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like schedule_workouts (plural) by focusing on a single workout scheduling.

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 description provides context for use: it tells the agent that it takes an existing workout ID and a date, and it even directs to get IDs from get_workouts. It also mentions idempotency, which is helpful for deciding when to call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over schedule_workouts or other scheduling tools, though the singular vs plural distinction is implicit.

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