schedule_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key non-obvious trait: idempotency, specifically that scheduling an already-scheduled workout is a no-op that reports success without duplication. It also clarifies that it does not create a new workout but schedules an existing one, though it does not discuss auth or side effects beyond the calendar addition.

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 front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by a valuable idempotency note and a clear Args block. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, the source of the workout, the date format, and the idempotent behavior. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required from the description.

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 descriptions (0% coverage), so the Args section is essential and fully compensates. It explains workout_id as the ID from get_workouts and calendar_date with the exact YYYY-MM-DD format, giving the agent everything needed to fill both required parameters correctly.

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 verb and resource: schedule an existing workout to a specific calendar date. It clarifies the source (Garmin workout library) and destination (Garmin Connect calendar), clearly distinguishing it from the many read-oriented sibling tools.

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 implies when to use the tool by saying it adds an existing workout to a date and points to get_workouts for IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like schedule_workouts for bulk scheduling or unschedule_workout for removal, so the exclusion guidance is missing.

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