icu_apply_training_plan

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond scheduling onto calendar; it does not contradict annotations but also lacks extra context like whether it overwrites or merges events. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second provides prerequisite, third differentiates from alternatives. No unnecessary words, fully front-loaded.

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 has an output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and differentiation. Return values are handled by the output schema, so the description is 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is justified.

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 action ('Schedule an entire training plan...onto the athlete's calendar') and the resource ('workout-library folder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like icu_create_event, icu_bulk_create_events, and icu_duplicate_events.

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 mentions to use after icu_get_workout_library to obtain the folder_id, and directly contrasts with three alternative tools (icu_create_event, icu_bulk_create_events, icu_duplicate_events), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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