Icu Apply Training Plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds that a whole plan lands on the calendar at once (which contextualizes destructiveness) and the folder_id prerequisite, but says nothing about what happens to pre-existing entries on those dates or whether re-running duplicates the plan.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then prerequisite, then sibling disambiguation. No filler.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent bulk-scheduling tool with an output schema and full parameter docs; the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and alternatives. What is missing is the overwrite/conflict behavior when dates already hold events, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including extra_workouts_json and athlete_id are documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of a chosen start date; it does not explain the optional extra_workouts_json semantics or coach/athlete_id behavior beyond the schema.

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 (schedule), a specific resource (an entire training plan / workout-library folder), and the target surface (athlete's calendar) with the start-date scoping. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, so differentiation is immediate.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ("Use after icu_get_workout_library to find a plan's folder_id") and contrasts with three siblings: icu_create_event/icu_bulk_create_events build new events, icu_duplicate_events copies existing. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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