apply_training_week

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

The description adds key behavioral traits: it creates, schedules, and reads back, and explicitly states it never deletes workouts. This complements the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not mention idempotency (already in annotations) or what happens on re-application, missing some depth.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—with no fluff. It front-loads the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, which slightly reduces effectiveness.

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 tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools with similar purposes, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameters, return value, or how this tool fits with siblings. The annotations provide some context, but the description fails to round out the picture.

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 provides zero explanation of the three parameters (hash, confirmed, canonicalProposal). The schema has constraints but no semantic meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it completely fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess the role of each parameter.

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 states the tool creates, schedules, and reads back an approved week, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like preview_training_week or verify_training_week, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool versus those.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to choose apply_training_week over preview_training_week or verify_training_week, so the agent lacks context for correct selection.

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