Add workout comment

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that 'Repeating the call posts a duplicate,' which is a meaningful non-idempotency disclosure. It also clarifies the audience (both athlete and coach). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a targeted alternative. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description plus annotations cover the core use case: append a visible comment, with a warning about duplicates and a sibling note. However, it could mention the optional 'athlete' parameter (coach accounts) and that no return value is specified, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 33%, with only 'athlete' described in the schema. The description does not explain 'workout_id' or 'comment' semantics, nor does it add any parameter-level details. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer meanings from parameter names alone.

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 action ('Append a comment'), the target resource ('workout's thread'), and the visibility scope ('visible to both athlete and coach'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tp_set_workout_note, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides an alternative usage: 'For a private note use tp_set_workout_note instead.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the correct sibling, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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