Assign a COROS Training Hub workout to a training-calendar date using its workout ID, enabling planned workout scheduling.
Assign an existing COROS Training Hub workout to a date in the COROS training calendar. Use list_workouts first to obtain the workout ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD format | |
| workoutId | Yes | COROS workout ID returned by list_workouts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb 'assign' – it doesn't disclose whether an existing assignment on the same date is overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations but also doesn't enrich them.
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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is clearly stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential invocation step and prerequisite. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on what happens if the date already has a scheduled workout, but this is not critical for an agent to correctly call the tool.
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 100% and both parameters are fully described in the schema (workoutId as 'COROS workout ID returned by list_workouts', date format). The description repeats the workoutId source without adding new information, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('assign') and clearly identifies the resource (existing COROS Training Hub workout) and destination (COROS training calendar date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_scheduled_workout, move_scheduled_workout, and swap_calendar_workouts by stating exactly what action it performs.
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?
It provides a clear prerequisite ('Use list_workouts first to obtain the workout ID') which tells the agent the necessary precondition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative scheduling tools like create_workout or move_scheduled_workout. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.