schedule-workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions sync behavior but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing schedules), permissions required, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with only two sentences (14 words). It is front-loaded with the primary action and adds a secondary note about syncing, leaving no wasted words.

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 tool is simple with few parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the basics. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., workout must exist, date format validation) and timezone handling, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context ('existing workout', 'on your calendar') but does not provide new details beyond what the schema already states for the two parameters.

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 verb 'schedule', the resource 'existing workout', and the target 'date on your calendar'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-workout (creation) and list-workouts (listing) by focusing on scheduling an existing 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?

The description implies usage (scheduling an existing workout) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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