schedule_week

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency (existing dates reported and POST skipped to avoid duplicates) and partial-failure semantics (a bad entry is reported while the batch continues). It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit context.

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 error/idempotency behavior, then argument detail. Each sentence earns its place, with only mild redundancy in the Args restatement.

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 single-parameter batch mutation with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: action, idempotent behavior, and parameter shape. No annotations exist, so it could add permission/response framing, but the output schema absorbs the return-value burden.

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 documents the week array's inner dict keys (calendar_date as YYYY-MM-DD, workout_id as int) and even anchors the key convention to sibling tools. It doesn't clarify whether additional keys are accepted, though the schema sets additionalProperties: true.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Schedule a list of workouts for the week in a single call'), clearly distinguishing batch-of-one-week intent from the singular schedule_workout. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling schedule_workouts, which is also a batch scheduling tool.

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 'in a single call' phrasing plus the idempotency note implies when this batch tool is preferred, and the partial-failure behavior is stated. However, it never names schedule_workouts or explains which of the two batch tools to choose, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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