schedule_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/remote-effect profile is covered. The description adds only that the target is the calendar, and says nothing about duplicate scheduling, whether the workout definition is modified, or idempotency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word carries meaning and the action is stated before anything else.

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?

Low-complexity, two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, so the description does not need to explain return values. Minor gaps remain around duplicate scheduling and the timezone basis for "today".

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 coverage is 50%: `day` is documented in the schema, while `workout_id` is not. The description's "existing saved workout" partly compensates by implying workout_id must reference a previously created workout, but adds no detail on the day/today default or timezone behavior.

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?

States a specific verb ("Put") and resource ("existing saved workout") and destination ("Garmin calendar"). The qualifier "existing saved" implicitly separates it from create_workout, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase "existing saved workout" hints at a prerequisite (the workout must already exist, so create_workout comes first), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives such as unschedule_workout or get_scheduled_workouts.

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