create_weekly_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the multi-step side effects (uploads AND schedules all workouts), the required per-entry date, and the non-obvious failure mode where a missing date still uploads but reports schedule_error. It lacks any auth/permission or idempotency note, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured into behavior, format example, and edge case. The embedded JSON sample consumes space but earns it by pinning down the file format for a 0%-coverage parameter. Slightly long, but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, and it only briefly notes it 'returns a summary.' Combined with thorough format and edge-case documentation, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly; only the absence of sibling routing and auth details keeps it from 5.

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 coverage is 0% and the lone parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining plan_yaml_path as an absolute path to a JSON/YAML file and specifying the exact expected entry structure. This is far more than the bare schema conveys.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create and schedule a full week of workouts from a plan file,' and even enumerates the internal steps (parse, map, upload, schedule). The purpose is unmistakable and reads as a high-level orchestrator. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like schedule_week or upload_workouts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the plan-file input: an agent can infer this is the bulk/week-batch entry point rather than the single-workout creators. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g. schedule_week or the individual create_*_workout tools), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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