update_scheduled_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by explaining the prerequisite data fetching and the need to recalculate derived metrics via calculate_workout_program. This adds behavioral insight beyond the structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first states purpose, the second provides a structured workflow. No filler or redundant content. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a complex update tool with nested objects and dependencies, the description covers the workflow, prerequisite tools, and a conditional step. The output schema exists, so return values are documented. It could mention reversible/destructive consequences, but the destructiveHint annotation covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the role of entity and program and the default behavior of version_object. The description's workflow reiterates this context but adds no new syntactic or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Update an existing scheduled workout on the Coros training calendar.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the term 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like schedule_workout. The workflow references sibling tools, further clarifying its role.

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 provides a clear workflow: fetch the day with list_planned_activities_raw, edit entity/program, and run through calculate_workout_program if exercises changed. This is explicit usage guidance with named alternatives and a condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with other update/schedule tools, so the score is 4 rather than 5.

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