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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully surfaces the confirm-gated preview/execute workflow and patch semantics, but says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or reversibility of the edit.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operation is named first and the key calling constraint second. Efficient despite the thin content.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 11% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits merge/replace behavior, permission requirements, and what the preview returns.

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 11% (just the confirm param), so the description must compensate for eight undocumented fields. 'Only send the fields that change' communicates patch semantics, which is valuable, but the remaining fields (goal, tags, title, exercises, difficulty, visibility, description) get no explanation.

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 (Edit) and resource (workout plan template), which cleanly separates it from create_/get_/delete_/list_workout_plan_template siblings. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the non-template update_workout_plan.

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 '(confirm-gated)' note and 'only send the fields that change' imply the usage pattern (patch, then confirm), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like update_workout_plan or create_workout_plan_template. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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