write_schedule_mode

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by stating exactly what is destroyed ("its future date pins go") and what is preserved ("the rotation stays saved for later"). It also discloses idempotency behavior and the last-writer-wins sync/merge semantics, all of which an agent could not infer from structured fields alone.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense, heavily quoted run-on paragraph with no front-loaded definition of what the tool does. The closing openGym/merge sentence is tangential and hard to parse in context, and a one-parameter switch does not warrant this much prose.

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 destructive, single-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers the two mode outcomes, idempotency, what a mode switch stops, and how sync conflicts resolve. It does not address required permissions or when the change takes effect, leaving modest gaps.

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%, but the schema's enum values are self-describing; the description adds real meaning by explaining what each of "week" and "rotation" actually does to the plan. There is no default or omission semantics described, so it stops just short of exhaustive.

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 names the resource concretely (the app's "How you train" switch) and defines what each mode value means. It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to write_rotation for setting the rotation and write_session_queue for the queue. The verb is implied (switching/setting a mode) rather than stated outright, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 concrete selection guidance — use "rotation" to resume a saved rotation, "week" to return to fixed weekdays — and routes to write_rotation and write_session_queue for adjacent concerns. Idempotency is also spelled out ("choosing the mode the plan is already in changes nothing"). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use and prerequisite/permission guidance, so not a 5.

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