Rename a workout block and set its instructions, such as warm-up circuits or rest times, to tailor training sessions.
Rename a block and/or set its instruction (e.g. warm-up circuit, rest times).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| team_id | No | ||
| block_id | Yes | ||
| instruction | No | ||
| program_workout_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose permissions, whether the update is partial or replaces existing values, how null values are treated, or what happens to required parent IDs. It only states the two fields that can change.
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. The examples in parentheses add useful context without bloating the 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?
Given five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It tells the agent what fields can change but omits required parent identifiers, mutation behavior, and return/response expectations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It adds meaning only for 'title' (rename) and 'instruction', leaving 'program_workout_id', 'block_id', and 'team_id' undocumented, along with the effect of null/default values.
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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Rename a block and/or set its instruction.' It makes the resource ('block') and the updatable fields ('title', 'instruction') explicit. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like update_session or set_prescription, so it falls short of a 5.
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 this is for modifying block metadata, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_session, set_prescription, or add_to_block. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.