update_routineUpdate an existing routine: change its name, reorder template IDs, or adjust frequency. Pass only the fields to change. To add/remove templates, pass the full updated template_ids array. Use get_routine first to see current state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| updates | Yes | Fields to update (pass only what changes) | |
| routine_id | Yes | Routine ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: partial updates are supported, template_ids must include the entire list to overwrite, and reading current state before updating is recommended. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by targeted usage rules. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is easy for an agent to parse and apply.
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?
The definition covers the main behavioral nuances (partial update, full array for templates, prerequisite get_routine) and relies on the schema for parameter details. While there is no output schema and the description doesn't state what a successful response contains, the tool is still fully callable with the provided information.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the updates object ('pass only the fields to change') and the special requirement for template_ids to be a full replacement array. This clarifies usage beyond the individual 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing routine' with the exact editable aspects (name, template IDs order, frequency). It also names the sibling get_routine, which helps disambiguate from read-type tools. This is a precise, action-oriented definition.
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 gives strong operational guidance: pass only changed fields, pass the full template_ids array to add/remove templates, and call get_routine first to see current state. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative update tools (e.g., update_workout), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.