Schedule a workout

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds that it places an existing workout on a calendar, which is a helpful side-effect clarification, but it does not disclose potential overwrite behavior, timezone handling, or other scheduling nuances.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key constraint ('existing'). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, it omits date format details and any guidance about conflicts with existing scheduled workouts, making it only minimally complete for reliable invocation.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'existing workout' and 'given date', but does not specify the date format, how to obtain the workout_id, or what values are valid. This is insufficient for a tool whose schema provides no descriptions.

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 workout on the calendar for a date. The word 'existing' helps distinguish this from garmin_create_workout, and the scheduling verb distinguishes it from garmin_unschedule_workout. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for scheduling an already-created workout on a specific date. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer related tools like create_workout, list_workouts, or scheduled_workouts.

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