Schedule Workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and mostly doesn't: nothing says what happens if a workout is already scheduled for that day, whether the call is idempotent, that Coros authentication is required (siblings authenticate_coros/check_coros_auth imply a session dependency), or that this is a state-mutating write. 'Add ... to the calendar' only conveys the mutation itself.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral detail is missing rather than a sign of disciplined scope.

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 output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, so return values and arguments are covered. What remains missing for a mutation tool with zero annotations is prerequisite/authentication context and conflict behavior with an already-scheduled workout.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (workout_id, happen_day, sort_no) are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the notion of picking an existing workout, which slightly reinforces workout_id but adds no new meaning about date format or ordering.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: adds an *existing* library workout to the Coros training calendar. The word 'existing' usefully distinguishes it from create_workout, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent can tell what it does, but must infer the boundary with replace_scheduled_workout and move_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The phrase 'from the library' hints that the workout must pre-exist (i.e., use create_workout first), but this is inference rather than guidance, and the presence of replace_scheduled_workout/move_scheduled_workout in the sibling list goes unaddressed.

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