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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds that the operation renames, moves, or annotates a week, which usefully implies a partial-update mutation, but it omits side effects such as whether moving a week reorders other weeks.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact for a simple edit operation.

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 four parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify partial-update behavior, side effects of changing position, or what happens when only some fields are supplied.

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 25%, so the description needs to compensate; its verbs map reasonably to the fields: 'renames' to name, 'moves' to position, and 'annotates' to notes. However, it does not explain position semantics or ordering behavior, and the required weekId is only documented in the schema.

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 set and resource: 'Renames, moves or annotates one week of a program.' It clearly scopes the operation to a single program week, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as update_program_day or add_program_week.

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 implies that this tool edits an existing program week, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never says when to use update_program_week instead of update_program_day, add_program_week, or set_workout_weeks.

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