Add or Update Planned Workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the transaction semantics (create/update based on eventId) and mentions workoutDoc for steps, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, potential overwriting behavior, or the response format. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses only two sentences to convey the resource, the create/update mechanism, and the optional workoutDoc structure. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's complexity (9 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid overview but lacks some completeness. It does not mention the required parameters (name, workoutType) or what the response looks like. It also does not advise how to obtain an event_id (e.g., via get_events). A more complete description would address these gaps, especially since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying eventId's behavior ('Kirim event_id untuk update, kosongkan untuk membuat baru') and by elaborating on workoutDoc's purpose (defining steps with warmup/interval/cooldown, target power/hr/pace). This enhances the parameter meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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: 'Buat atau update planned workout (event kalender kategori WORKOUT) di Intervals.icu.' It specifies the resource (planned workouts, calendar event category WORKOUT) and distinguishes it from siblings like add_or_update_note and delete_event. The verb 'Buat atau update' is specific and action-oriented.

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 explicit guidance on when to create vs update: 'Kirim event_id untuk update, kosongkan untuk membuat baru.' This clarifies the key decision point for using the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the create/update distinction is clear and actionable.

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