create_workout

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose non-obvious behavior: exercises are placed in the given order, items sharing a `superset` label are collapsed into one block, and a failed step triggers rollback of the half-built session. That atomicity guarantee is genuinely valuable and not derivable from the schema. It omits what the call returns (e.g. a new session id needed for follow-up tools) and any duplicate-date or permission semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then three short sentences that each add a distinct rule (ordering, superset grouping, rollback). No filler and no repetition of schema 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers construction semantics and failure behavior well, but leaves open the return value, the date format, and whether an existing session on that date conflicts. An agent could call it correctly but would be guessing about the response and about downstream id handling.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% (date, title, exercises, and instruction are undocumented), though nested $defs do describe superset, block_title, and exercise_id. The description compensates partially by explaining superset grouping and characterizing exercise fields as 'prescription and cue', but it says nothing about the expected `date` format or what `title` means in context.

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 — creating a complete workout in one call, with exercises placed into ordered blocks — which is concrete enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, the wording 'personal session' collides with the sibling tool create_session, and the description never clarifies the difference, leaving a real disambiguation risk.

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 phrase 'in one call' implicitly contrasts this with the incremental path (create_session + add_exercises + set_prescription), which is useful signal. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing existing exercise ids from search_exercises.

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