update-workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns the updated workout with all changes applied,' which is transparent about output. However, it does not disclose whether all fields must be provided (schema requires title, startTime, endTime) or if omitted fields are cleared. This gap lowers the score.

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 two sentences with a clear purpose statement followed by what can be modified and the return. It is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence lists fields without structure, which is acceptable given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested exercises, no output schema), the description is very brief. It fails to explain the exercise schema, the required nature of some fields, or update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replace). More detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning by naming the modifiable categories (title, description, times, privacy, exercise data) but does not detail the nested exercise structure (e.g., sets, types). With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving the complex exercise parameters underspecified.

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 the tool updates an existing workout by ID and lists the modifiable fields (title, description, times, privacy, exercises), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-workout or get-workouts.

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 usage when you have a workout ID and need to modify it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for partial updates vs full replaces) or compare with alternatives like create-workout. Sibling tool names provide context but description lacks explicit guidance.

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