create_workout

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It does disclose the key side effect ('same name on the same date overwrites instead of duplicating'), which is genuinely valuable, but omits whether the workout is pushed to a device/Watch, any sync or connectivity requirements, and whether repeats are supported despite RepeatSpec existing in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then terse, semicolon-separated clauses each carrying a distinct constraint. No filler sentences.

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?

Covers formats, overwrite semantics and treadmill mode, which is adequate for a mutation tool. It leaves out the RepeatSpec/repeat-step capability the schema exposes, and with no output schema it says nothing about what the call returns or whether the agent should preview first.

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?

The top-level schedule_date and time parameters have no schema descriptions, and the description supplies their exact formats ('YYYY-MM-DD', 24h 'HH:MM'). It also spells out target and duration token syntax, which reinforces rather than merely repeats the nested schema descriptions.

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 ('Create a structured running workout') plus the scheduling side effect. The word 'running' implicitly separates it from create_strength_workout, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied — you would call this to build a new scheduled workout — and the overwrite rule tells the agent how duplicates behave. However, it never says when to use preview_workout first, when create_training_plan is the better choice, or when to unschedule instead.

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