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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds that 'name is always sent,' but does not explain partial-update behavior, what happens to omitted fields, or any permission requirements.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is very terse for an eight-parameter mutation, but conciseness itself is strong.

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 eight-parameter mutation with very low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not explain how the optional fields behave or how updates are applied.

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 only 13%, and the description mentions only that 'name' is always sent. It does not compensate for the undocumented optional fields such as equipment, image_url, video_url, description, instructions, or muscle_groups.

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 and resource: it changes an exercise in the trainer's library. That is clear enough to distinguish an update operation from create/list/search siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_exercise_template, list_exercise_templates, or search_exercises. The update intent is implied by the verb 'Changes,' but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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