icu_create_workout_folder

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description's 'Create' is consistent with that. Beyond annotations, it adds useful context: the object belongs to the workout library rather than the calendar, and the result is meant to be consumed as a folder_id by other tools.

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, no fluff, with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream usage stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a create tool with only one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough orientation: what is created, what it is not, how to use the result, and where to look for existing folders. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, athlete_id, description, and folder_type. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the FOLDER/PLAN distinction, which is already present in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new LIBRARY folder or training PLAN') and immediately distinguishes this from a calendar item, which separates it from event-creation siblings. It also names the downstream workflow, so an agent knows exactly what the tool is for.

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?

It explicitly says what this tool is not ('not a calendar item'), where the returned id should be passed (icu_create_workout or icu_bulk_create_workouts), and how to browse existing folders (icu_get_workout_library). This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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