schedule_strength_workout

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

Description discloses a key behavioral trait not available from annotations: 'Does NOT save to the Coros library — leaves no template behind.' It also sets expectations for handling ambiguous user intent ('If the user's intent is unclear, ASK THEM'). Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, but the description adds crucial context about the lack of persistent template side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear multi-paragraph format with key information in the first line, followed by usage guidance and disambiguation. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with the quoted question, but this earns its place. Not overly long, but could be trimmed slightly without losing intent.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 3 required, nested exercise array) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: the one-off nature, distinction from template-saving siblings, and clear instructions for ambiguous cases. No gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only cross-references the exercises shape to another tool ('Same shape as save_strength_workout_template'), which is already stated in the schema. No extra semantic value is provided beyond the schema's documentation.

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's primary action: 'Schedule a ONE-OFF strength workout for a specific date.' It specifies the exact verb (schedule), resource (strength workout), and scope (one-off, specific date). It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like save_strength_workout_template, eliminating ambiguity about which tool to use.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever the user wants a strength workout on a specific date and doesn't explicitly ask for a reusable template.' It provides a clear alternative for reusable templates ('use save_strength_workout_template') and instructs the agent to ask the user when intent is unclear, including a direct question template. This is exceptionally actionable.

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