replace_scheduled_workout

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only; the description adds a specific behavioral detail: the replacement is scheduled before the old occurrence is removed, implying a defined order and safer failure mode. It also makes clear the old calendar occurrence is removed, identifying what is affected.

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-load the purpose and then add one relevant behavior detail. No wasted words or repeated schema information.

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 destructive, write-side tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps: no parameter details, no when-to-use guidance, and no mention of how success is indicated. An agent could select the tool but would be guessing at sourceDate/idInPlan format.

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 burden is on the description. It identifies 'library workout' as the replacement source and a 'calendar occurrence' as the target, but it doesn't explain the formats or distinct roles of sourceDate, idInPlan, and replacementWorkoutId beyond that coarse mapping.

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 clear action verb ('Replace') and names both the target resource ('one calendar occurrence') and the source ('another library workout'), so the core operation is unambiguous. It reads distinctly from move/remove/assign siblings even though it doesn't name an alternative.

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 guidance is given for when to choose this tool over swap_calendar_workouts, move_scheduled_workout, or remove_scheduled_workout. The only context is 'replace', which agents must infer. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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