move_scheduled_workout

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

Annotations already signal a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful detail that contents do not change, but it does not explain conflict behavior, what happens to the original source date, or whether the move is a reschedule with side effects. It adds context without being comprehensive.

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 terse sentences provide immediate action and the key prerequisite. The first sentence is front-loaded with the action and scope; the second delivers necessary guidance without any filler.

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 a fairly simple 3-parameter mutation tool and no output schema, the description gives an important precondition but omits date format details, conflict/error behavior, and whether a successful move removes the original scheduled slot. It is adequate for launch but leaves meaningful uncertainty for an autonomous agent.

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 carries the burden. It implies newDate is the target date and tells the user to retrieve scheduled information from list_scheduled_workouts, which helps identify sourceDate and idInPlan. But it never explicitly maps each parameter or explains formats, IDs, or requirements.

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 the specific verb 'Move' and the resource 'a COROS calendar workout', and narrows the action to changing the date 'without changing its contents'. This clearly distinguishes it from swap, copy, replace, or update tools in the sibling list.

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 supplies a concrete prerequisite: 'Use list_scheduled_workouts first', which tells the agent what to do before invoking. However, it does not name alternatives such as swap_calendar_workouts or replace_scheduled_workout nor explicitly say when not to use move, so it falls short of a full 5.

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