schedule_workout

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds key behavioral context: 'Does NOT save to the Coros library — leaves no template behind,' and details sport_type wire ID rejection ('Don't pass 1 directly'). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured hints, though it doesn't cover all potential 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 first sentence states the purpose, followed by concise usage boundaries and an explicit clarification prompt. Every sentence earns its place; the quoted user question is structural guidance, not fluff. The length is appropriate for the tool's decision complexity.

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?

The description covers the common case, the alternative path, essential behavioral notes (no template saved), parameter edge cases (sport_type internal mapping), and a decision heuristic for ambiguous intent. With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, making this complete for the tool's context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., sport_type defaults, intensity_type defaults, happen_day format). The description adds value by cross-referencing the steps shape to save_workout_template and clarifying sport type categories align with the schema's values, which goes beyond a pure schema summary.

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 opens with 'Schedule a ONE-OFF cycling/intervals/running workout for a specific date,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from reusable-template siblings. It explicitly contrasts itself with save_workout_template, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('whenever the user wants a workout on a specific date and doesn't explicitly ask for a reusable template'), when-not-to-use (reusable template → save_workout_template), and even an ask-if-unclear script with a direct quote. This is model guidance.

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