Mark a planned workout as done

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool creates a manual activity matching the plan, which is a meaningful side effect. It also states the date constraint. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds useful context without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately follows with the key behavioral and date constraints, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, why it is used, when it applies, and its side effect. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single parameter id is fully described as 'Planned workout event id.' The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but since the schema already documents the only parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific action (marking a planned workout as completed) and the resource (planned workout), and adds the key clarifying detail that it creates a manual activity matching the plan. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_workout or create_manual_activity by tying the activity to a plan.

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 clear usage context: it is for sessions done without a watch and only for today or past dates. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the date restriction, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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