garmin_schedule_workouts

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an already-scheduled workout on the same day is skipped, so calls are effectively idempotent per date. It still does not say what happens on conflicts, invalid workout_ids, or partial failures in the item list.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the one non-obvious constraint. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 mutation with annotations and an inline schema example, the core is covered. Missing pieces are what the tool returns (no output schema) and what happens when a workout_id is invalid or the date already holds a different workout, which matters for a calendar-writing operation.

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 100% and the single 'items' parameter carries an inline example showing date/workout_id pairs. The description only adds that multiple entries can be batched into a week plan; it gives no date-format, timezone, or ordering semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: putting saved workouts on the calendar, with the batch scope ('a week plan at once'). It is distinguishable from garmin_workouts (workout library) and garmin_calendar (calendar view), but it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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 'saved workouts' (the workout must already exist) and by the hint that a week's worth can be scheduled in one call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to use for editing or removing a scheduled workout.

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