calculate_workout_program

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying that the tool calls an external Coros endpoint, returns a copy of the program with derived fields, and does not itself persist changes. It explains what is calculated (duration, distance, training load, exerciseBarChart). It does not cover auth/error behavior, but that is unnecessary given the annotations and calculation-focused purpose.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, an informative second sentence about behavior/return value, and a practical third sentence about downstream usage. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values. It sufficiently covers the operation's purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and how to chain it with a sibling tool. For a calculation helper, this is a complete picture.

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?

The schema provides only an opaque 'program' object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage, so the description carries most of the semantic responsibility. It does convey that 'program' is a workout program with exercises and derived fields, which is useful, but it does not specify the internal structure or required fields needed to invoke the tool correctly. This is a meaningful but incomplete compensation.

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 states a specific action ('Recalculate a workout program after editing its exercises') and clearly identifies the resource (workout program). It also names the underlying API call and differentiates itself from sibling scheduling tools by specifying it computes derived fields and should be followed by update_scheduled_workout.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after editing its exercises') and gives concrete downstream guidance ('Feed the returned program into update_scheduled_workout when its exercises changed'). This is strong usage direction that prevents misuse relative to the scheduling siblings.

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