create_training_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that re-pushing the same name updates in place, that replace=True drops sessions no longer present, and that dry_run=True validates without publishing. It does not cover permissions, visibility of published plans, or error behavior, but the key mutation and destructive semantics are surfaced.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value about item format, update semantics, or validation. There is no filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 params at 0% schema coverage, the description gives important semantics but leaves meaningful gaps. It omits the `time` parameter, publication visibility, and return/error behavior, so an agent still lacks some information needed to invoke it confidently.

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 must compensate. It explains `items` in useful detail (date + WorkoutSpec/StrengthSpec, with exercises signalling strength), and explains `replace` and `dry_run`, but it never mentions the `time` parameter or fully clarifies `name` beyond update-by-name behavior.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Publish a multi-week plan you wrote yourself.' The phrase 'you wrote yourself' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_marathon_plan and create_hs_track_plan, though it does not name those alternatives 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?

The self-authored qualifier implies this tool is for custom multi-week plans rather than preset plans or single workouts. However, it never explicitly compares itself to siblings such as create_workout or create_marathon_plan, and there are no stated exclusions or selection conditions.

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