garmin_workout_schedule

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 write-to-external-calendar nature is partly covered. The description adds that the target is the user's Garmin calendar, but says nothing about idempotency, what happens if a workout is already scheduled on that date, timezone handling, or whether the operation can be undone — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, target resource, and scoping dimension in that order. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a calendar-mutating tool the description omits conflict/overwrite behavior and timezone assumptions, leaving an agent without guidance on edge cases it will likely encounter.

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%: workout_id already documents its source ('From garmin_workouts_list') and scheduled_date documents the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Put') and resource ('a saved workout on the user's Garmin calendar') plus the scoping parameter (a date), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like garmin_workout_unschedule or garmin_workout_create. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'saved workout' (the workout must already exist, presumably from garmin_workouts_list), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the unschedule sibling as the inverse operation. An agent can infer the context but is not told about alternatives or preconditions such as whether the workout must be created first.

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