Preview a workout

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by stating 'WITHOUT uploading' and detailing the types of errors it surfaces. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the tool's side-effect-free nature and its focus on validation, without contradicting any annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then a direct usage recommendation. No wasted words; ideal for a complex tool where the schema carries parameter details.

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 the high schema complexity (nested steps, many optional fields) and no output schema, the description provides useful context about behavior (compilation, no upload, error surfacing). It doesn't describe the return value format, but the purpose and usage guidance are sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, especially with the schema covering parameter semantics.

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%, meeting the high-coverage threshold, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description text does not need to add parameter-level meaning; it only mentions outputs like 'unit conversions' and 'truncated titles', which are consequences of parameter processing rather than direct parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Compile a structured workout into the SuuntoPlus guide format') and explicitly states it returns without uploading, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workouts and describe_backend. The phrase 'Use this first' reinforces its unique role.

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?

Clear guidance is provided: 'Use this first' followed by what it surfaces (unit conversions, truncated titles, validation errors) and why (catch mistakes before they reach the watch). This implies it's a pre-upload validation step, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative upload tools 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.