create_hs_track_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses mileage ceilings by training_age, Sunday rest, no doubles, adequacy-only nutrition, and the meaning of dry_run. It omits a significant behavior — that `replace` defaults to true, so an existing plan may be overwritten, and there is no note on permissions or what publishing entails.

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?

Compact and front-loaded — the core behavior and defaults come first, caveats after. The line-broken phrasing and added defaults table are a little repetitive ('goal_time defaults to the barrier' plus the enumerated barriers), but nothing is 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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, much is covered (defaults, constraints, dry_run), but the omission of `replace`'s overwrite semantics and the meaning of half the parameters leaves real gaps an agent would need filled before invoking it.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains goal_time defaults, training_age's three values, and dry_run, but leaves `time`, `weeks`, `meet_days`, `start_date`, `current_weekly_miles`, `event`, and especially `replace` completely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a high-school track block') and enumerates supported events (800/1600/3200/5k). This distinguishes it in spirit from create_training_plan and create_marathon_plan, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives real usage context: coach review before running the plan, and dry_run=True to validate without publishing. However, it never says when to choose this over create_training_plan/create_marathon_plan, which is the key routing decision an agent faces among these siblings.

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