schedule_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful dual behavior that add=false removes the entry. It omits other behavioral traits an agent needs for a calendar mutation: what happens if the workout is already scheduled, permission/auth requirements, and failure modes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and the key parameter facts; every clause earns its place with 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the parameters adequately but leaves out the relationship to unschedule_workout, conflict behavior, and error/permission context that an agent would need to choose and call 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that `code` comes from list_my_workouts, that `date` is YYYY-MM-DD, and that `add=false` removes rather than adds. Only mild gaps remain (no note on default value or accepted code formats beyond the sibling reference).

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 concrete verb+resource ('put a saved template on a day') with the required identifier source and date format, which is well beyond a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling unschedule_workout, and the add=false removal path actually overlaps with that sibling, leaving ambiguity about which tool owns removal.

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 tells the agent where the `code` comes from (list_my_workouts), which is genuine usage context. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, and does not resolve the overlap with the dedicated unschedule_workout tool.

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