schedule_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly signals a write operation, explains the effect (pushed to watch on next sync), and mentions reversibility. It does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting an existing schedule, but it is transparent about core behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences and a compact args list, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds distinct value, from write nature to auto-sync and reversibility.

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 there is an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, parameter source, auto-sync behavior, reversibility, and is complete for a simple write operation. It could mention edge cases like date restrictions, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema: workout_id is explained as coming from create/listing functions, and date is given format YYYY-MM-DD. Both parameters are fully described with practical context, exceeding the schema's minimal type-only definitions.

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: 'Put an existing library workout on a Garmin Connect calendar date' with the explicit 'a WRITE' marker. It distinguishes from siblings like unschedule_workout and the read-oriented getters, and specifies it works for any workout type.

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 provides context on input source (workout_id from create/list functions) and states reversibility with unschedule_workout, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative scheduling mechanisms, and could be clearer about prerequisites like date validity.

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