propose_week

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it succeeds: it states the tool writes nothing, returns a preview and one proposal id, and that apply_workout is needed for the actual Garmin sync. It also clarifies that existing calendar content is listed and the package adds to it.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, structure, defaults, usage trigger, output behavior, and side-effect disclosure. It is slightly long but justifiably so given the absence of annotations and the tool's 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?

For a tool with no annotations and three optional parameters, the description covers what the tool builds, what the response contains, what happens next via apply_workout, and what side effects are absent. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents start_day, long_run_day, and days_per_week including defaults and constraints. The description adds useful context like default session sizes (50/55/45/90 min), but does not need to carry parameter meaning, making baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Build a polarised training week and file it as ONE proposal' — and enumerates the week's structure in concrete terms. It also distinguishes itself from apply_workout by explaining that this tool only creates the proposal and does not push to Garmin.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the athlete asks for their week, with example phrasings like 'plan my week'. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or name the closest sibling alternative, so it stops at clear context without exclusions.

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