garmin_schedule_workout

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

The annotations already indicate the operation is mutating but not destructive, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as what happens if the date already has a scheduled workout or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core object and action are front-loaded, and every phrase adds meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. Still, the description leaves key operational details unspecified, especially the date format and prerequisite of an existing workout, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Existing workout' clarifies that workout_id refers to an already-created workout, and 'given date' clarifies the purpose of date. Yet it omits details like the expected date format or how to obtain a valid workout_id, so compensation is only partial.

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 phrase: 'Put an existing workout on the calendar for a given date.' It identifies both the action and the resource, and the qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from creating a new workout, while scheduling contrasts with unscheduling or deleting.

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 is clear when to use this tool: when an existing workout should be placed on a calendar date. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like scheduled_workouts, unschedule_workout, or create_workout, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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