Swap two scheduled COROS workouts between dates while keeping their calendar identities intact. Resolve date conflicts by exchanging workout occurrences without recreating entries.
Swap two scheduled COROS workout occurrences between dates while preserving their calendar identities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firstDate | Yes | ||
| secondDate | Yes | ||
| firstIdInPlan | Yes | ||
| secondIdInPlan | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only/destructive profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true). The description adds a useful behavioral detail—'preserving their calendar identities'—which implies a lightweight exchange rather than delete/recreate. However, it does not mention authentication, conflict checking, or any other side effects beyond the swap.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with room for waste. It states the operation, the object, and an important constraint. It could carry more context, but it is appropriately concise for a clear purpose.
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 mutating tool with four required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not state what success, what the response contains, whether it performs any conflict checks, or how the two 'occurrences' are actually identified binding together the date and id parameters.
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 0% and all four parameters are bare strings, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely maps 'dates' to the expected firstDate/secondDate parameters, and does not explain the {firstIdInPlan} identifiers or how they relate to occurrences. The agent mostly relies on parameter names, not the description.
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 ('swap') with a specific resource ('two scheduled COROS workout occurrences') and scope ('between dates'), and adds a meaningful constraint about preserving calendar identities. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like move_scheduled_workout or replace_scheduled_workout, relying on the verb alone to signal a two-way exchange.
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 provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as move_scheduled_workout, replace_scheduled_workout, or shift_calendar_range. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria—the agent must infer usage from the name (swap).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.