Propose Planned Update

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the tool never mutates directly, rejects without a network call for a detailed list of named causes, and transports the proposal to a coach inbox. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of side effects and failure modes.

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 dense but organized: front-loaded purpose, then intent-by-intent semantics, then rejection and outcome behavior. Every sentence adds operational information, and the structure mirrors how an agent would parse it.

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 complex multi-intent tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it covers accepted intents, parameterized identifiers, validation failures, and the post-acceptance destination. No critical operational aspect 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?

With no parameters in the input schema, the description must carry the full parameter burden, and it does: it names rootId, occurrenceDate, newDate, templateId, date, recurrenceRule, cutoffDate, and scope, and explains validity constraints for each intent. This far exceeds the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Propose a change to the calendar for human review') and enumerates four distinct intents, so an agent knows exactly what resource is affected and in which modes. It also distinguishes the operation from direct mutation, clarifying its role relative to siblings like propose_plan_update and propose_new_plan.

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?

It gives clear context: use for calendar changes requiring human review, and explicitly sources IDs/dates from get_planned_workouts. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the 'never a raw envelope' and 'for human review' signals effectively scope when this tool is appropriate.

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