Schedule workout

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=false but not the consequence; the description spells out that re-scheduling adds a duplicate entry rather than updating. It also discloses that the return value is the calendar entry keyed by schedule_id, a behavioral detail no annotation covers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by two tightly worded sentences that each deliver a distinct operational fact (return identity, duplicate behavior). No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With only two required, fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed: input source for the workout id, date semantics via schema, and return/id behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning by disambiguating workout_id from the returned schedule_id consumed by unschedule_workout. This prevents a common tool-chaining error that the schema alone would not prevent.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Put a saved workout on the calendar for a date'), scoping it clearly against siblings like list_scheduled_workouts and delete_workout. An agent can distinguish this from unschedule_workout and push_workout_to_device without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the alternate workflow: repeated scheduling creates a second entry, and moving a workout requires unscheduling the old entry first. It names the sibling tool (unschedule_workout) that handles the inverse operation, giving the agent concrete routing guidance.

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