garmin_schedule_workout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as whether scheduling replaces an existing entry, behavior on invalid IDs, idempotency, or error handling.

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 very concise (one sentence, 10 words) and front-loaded with the action and key constraint. However, it may be overly terse, missing some useful contextual information without being wasteful.

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 a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on edge cases, prerequisites, or result behavior. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward operation.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal value: it explains the format for 'day' (YYYY-MM-DD) but does not explain 'workout_id' (e.g., how to obtain it, that it refers to a template). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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') and the resources ('existing Garmin workout template' and 'YYYY-MM-DD date'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like garmin_create_scheduled_workout (which likely creates new templates) and garmin_unschedule_workout.

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 usage for scheduling an existing template on a date, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., garmin_create_scheduled_workout) or when not to use it.

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