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

Goes far beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations: it enumerates which returned fields are read-only, explains that unchanged fields sent back are no-ops, that 'resolved' target values are ignored on write, that 'summary' is in the caller's units, and that 'revision' is the concurrency token. It also discloses domain semantics for note steps that never reach watches.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the round-trip contract stated first. Some sentences are overloaded with parenthetical field lists and an ellipsis-truncated enumeration, which slightly blurs an otherwise efficient definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value — and it does: writable fields, node ids, read-only fields, revision token, summary units, and the note-step edge case. An agent can consume and round-trip the result without further documentation.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the HTML-description caveat. The description adds no additional meaning about 'id' or 'with_description_html' — its extra detail concerns return fields, not inputs — so the baseline 3 applies.

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: read a library workout template, specifically in the 'curated' form, which separates it from raw training reads. It frames the round-trip relationship with update_training_frame, but never distinguishes itself from sibling readers like get_training, get_planned_training, or list_training_frames.

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?

Embeds clear usage context: read this to obtain the exact payload update_training_frame expects, pass 'revision' back for optimistic concurrency, and omit read-only fields from a patch. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming the sibling reader that would apply to non-library or planned workouts.

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