add_planned_workout

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context that this is a low-level escape hatch. It does not detail side effects, authentication requirements, or failure modes beyond what annotations already signal. The mention that version_object defaults to status=1 (add) provides some behavioral nuance, but the description largely relies on annotations and schema for transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by targeted context and an explicit alternative. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 presence of annotations, a full output schema, and complete parameter schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and what to prefer instead. It could elaborate on what 'inline planned workout' implies or the distinction from schedule_workout further, but for a low-level tool with rich structured data, it is adequately 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to list_planned_activities_raw as the source for the raw entity/program objects, which helps callers understand the expected parameter origins. This goes slightly beyond the schema's field-level 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 tool adds an inline planned workout to the Coros training calendar, and distinguishes itself as a low-level escape hatch from the higher-level schedule_workout. It names the specific resource (calendar) and scope (inline planned workout), making it easy to differentiate from siblings.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (when already holding raw entity/program objects) and directs callers to prefer schedule_workout for the common case. It names the alternative tool clearly, providing strong usage guidance.

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