validate_structured_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is local, performs validation and calculation, and has no side effects on COROS. This goes beyond what annotations provide by clarifying the local execution aspect. It doesn't describe what 'calculate' produces (e.g., totals, duration), but the core non-destructive behavior is well disclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Validate and calculate'), names the resource, and states the critical side-effect constraint ('without writing anything to COROS'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a read-only validation tool with a rich input schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent the operation is local and non-persistent, which is the key contextual fact. It doesn't describe the return value (e.g., validation errors, calculated metrics), but with no output schema and a complex nested input, a bit more detail on what 'calculate' returns would improve completeness. Still, the essential context for safe invocation is present.

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 of explaining parameters. However, the description doesn't mention any parameter names or semantics. The schema itself is quite detailed with enums and nested structures, so an agent can infer meaning from property names like 'name', 'sport', 'steps', and 'overview'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema is self-explanatory enough to warrant a baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate and calculate'), a specific resource ('a structured workout'), and a clear scope ('locally without writing anything to COROS'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_structured_workout, which writes to COROS, and get_workout_details, which reads from COROS.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to validate or calculate a structured workout without persisting it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'without writing anything to COROS' phrase strongly signals it's the non-destructive alternative to create_structured_workout. A clear context is provided, though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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