schedule_workout_template

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

Annotations already cover read-only and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying this schedules an existing template (not a one-off) and points to the ID requirement. It does not discuss side effects like device sync (openWorldHint), but this is partially mitigated by annotations and output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No redundant wording; every sentence adds value.

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 and full parameter schema coverage, the description is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation. It provides purpose, selection criteria, and alternatives without unnecessary detail.

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 descriptions, so the description doesn't need to explain each. The description reinforces the workout_id semantics ('previously-saved template') but adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 existing library workout template to the training calendar. It specifically names the resource ('library workout TEMPLATE') and action ('Add'), and distinguishes itself from one-off scheduling tools by name.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'only when scheduling a previously-saved template by ID'. Also provides clear alternatives: 'use the inline tools instead: schedule_workout (cycling/intervals) or schedule_strength_workout (strength)'.

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