tp_schedule_library_workout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'schedule' without clarifying that this is a write operation, what side effects it has (e.g., overwriting existing calendar entries), or any permission requirements.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is under-specified for a four-parameter operation. It serves as a minimal purpose statement but lacks the structure needed for a complex tool.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, this terse description does not inform the agent about expected return values, error conditions, or the effect on existing data. The tool is incompletely specified for reliable autonomous use.

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?

The description adds no information about the parameters. With schema coverage at only 50% (date and athlete described, item_id and library_id not), the phrase 'library template' only weakly hints that item_id is the template, leaving library_id undefined. This does not compensate for the gaps.

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 uses a specific verb 'Schedule' and identifies both the resource ('library template') and destination ('calendar date'), making the core action unambiguous. It also differentiates this tool from siblings like tp_get_library_items or tp_create_workout, none of which offer scheduling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as having a library and item already created. The description simply states what it does without context on appropriate invocation.

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