Replace existing planned workouts in Intervals.icu after the complete training plan is approved. Provide new workouts and a review note to update the schedule.
Replace integration-owned events after approval of the complete plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newest | Yes | ||
| oldest | Yes | ||
| approved | Yes | ||
| workouts | Yes | ||
| review_note | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this operation replaces existing integration-owned events and is gated on approval, but it does not disclose whether the replacement is destructive, how conflicts are handled, or what happens if the approved flag is false.
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 efficient sentence and front-loads the action, but it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. It earns its place but does not convey enough information.
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 five required parameters and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain what 'oldest' and 'newest' represent, what workouts and review_note contain, how the approval flag controls behavior, and what the replacement scope actually is.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. The five required parameters (oldest, newest, workouts, review_note, approved) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and relationships.
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 names a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('integration-owned events'), and adds a precondition ('after approval of the complete plan'). This makes the tool's core action clear, though 'integration-owned events' is somewhat vague without knowing which external system or calendar is involved.
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 implies the tool should only be used after a plan has been approved, which is useful timing guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, state when not to use it, or explain what constitutes a 'complete plan'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.